I’m reading through the bible again for the first time in over thirty years and it’s a very different experience to the first time because I believed it and was much less cynical then!
I’m using the New English Translation (the one with all the translators’ comments online, although I’ve got a paper copy) and the Oxford Bible Commentary.
I’m liking the NET a lot. My only criticisms would be that its style of English is inconsistent (contemporary American in places and then excessively ‘biblical’ elsewhere -and he said, saying, etc) and it tends to translate Hebrew idioms literally. IMO there’s a problem with a translation if you have to put footnotes to explain what the translation means!
I’m still in the Hebrew Bible but could still forgive it anything for the places I’ve seen where it translates doulos as slave: ‘Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ’, fulfilling a particular bugbear of mine.

In “Passport to Magonia: On UFOs, Folklore, and Parallel Worlds” by Jacques Vallee, he points out that UFOs/AUPs have been seen for centuries. He notes that these “objects” appear to be just a bit more technologically advanced than whatever is current at the time, hence the reports change over the centuries. I haven’t read the book in years, yet I seem to recall Vallee wondering if they were “intra-inter(?)dimentional” objects, slipping in not from outer space, but inner space, so to speak–other dimensions. I’ve always wondered, we’re a small, insignificant planet on the outskirts of the galaxy. So why do we seemingly have so many reports of mysterious objects around us? What makes us important? Makes no sense to me.

“What do you think about the UAP reports? Real or not.”

Kind out there, don’t cha think? LOL.

Lovin’ the OUT THERE photos that precede every post. Where to go when here becomes too much. Out there. Photo journey. Sometimes photo journeys are the best.

Old Timer: I’ve always wondered, we’re a small, insignificant planet on the outskirts of the galaxy.

It’s all ‘relative’ when you think of the VASTNESS of the universe with its millions of galaxies;
and then you look at an atomic microscope and view the size of atomic particles, and each of those particles is made up of smaller particles ad infinitum . . .

size?

what are WE that we ‘wonder’ and ‘seek’ and ‘ask’ and ‘want to know’ that which is beyond our grasp to comprehend at our present level of being?

and why did our Creator God make us to seek and to find ‘answers’ to what envelops us in ‘wonder’ and ‘awe’?

questing – seeing as through ‘a glass darkly’ – but still questing, not giving up

John Berry: IMO there’s a problem with a translation if you have to put footnotes to explain what the translation means!

I would have to agree with that! I like to read the Bible on my laptop using Bible Gateway and that way I can use parallel translations or pull up any translation I want to look at to see the differences. I have been meditating on Psalm 27 recently and I just pulled up the NET translation of it and there are designated footnotes every few words or so and the footnote explanation at the bottom is far longer than the Psalm!

I do remember a talk given by Diane Landberg and in answer to someone’s question about reading a passage of scripture she advised to try reading it in a version that was more ‘paragraphy’ such as the Philips translation. I found that to be so helpful for me to understand the flow of a passage. I do not like the ESV – the literal or word for word type of translation doesn’t compute in my brain. Not to mention the hideous mess they made of Gen 3!

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: Which is why so much science fiction has come up with various portals / warp drives, etc. The distances are just too immense otherwise.

Science fiction has the uncanny knack for becoming reality.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: (I saw a green meteorite once, that was amazing.)

In early UFO lore (I’m talking late 1940s-early 1950s), “Green Fireballs” were part of the lore, a specific type of UFO. White Sands test range in New Mexico (the Area 51 of the day) figured heavily in those stories.

For a good overview and history of UFOLogy as a developing folk mythology, I recommend you scare up a copy of Watch the Skies by Chris Peebles.

Old Timer,

““intra-inter(?)dimentional” objects, slipping in not from outer space, but inner space, so to speak–other dimensions”
++++++++++++++

i’ve thought it plausible that these UFO sightings are human beings from the future, where string theory has been better understood, and time travel exploited.

the alleged & reported thing of non-human ‘biologics’ (whatever those are) which were recovered from UFO crash sites opens up more possibilities, of course.

i find it super exciting.

still waiting for sasquatch & mothman, the other 2 of my cryptotrinity.

I’m with
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes, on this. Also, some of the things sighted might possibly be fallen angels, but I’m with C.S. Lewis: I’m not going looking for them. I think the vast majority of UFOs/UAPs are “natural” phenomena.

In addition, I don’t believe there’s any other life in the universe. The odds are too great against it, to start with. I think God made all the beauty there is for us human beings, consistent with that to which he has created us to be: fully human in the image of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

D.

elastigirl,

if this is an unfair question, we could just talk about cheese.

Muff Potter,

And how could I forget a good Parmesan grated over spaghetti topped with a good sauce?

Now on to the translation issue. This is long, but relevant.

I have a degree in a modern language and have done some translating. It is incredibly difficult, even for people fluent in both the original and the receiving language. Because Scripture is so important, and because very few Christians know Hebrew and Greek, everyone wants “the most accurate translation”. What most people don’t understand about translating EVERY language:

There is no such thing as 100% one-to-one correspondence between words, even words like “and”.

Every translation decision reflects some kind of bias as to why a word or phrase is chosen, because of the very nature of language itself, which is so bound up with how we think – and how we think varies from culture to culture, and especially contrasting pre-Modern thought with post-Enlightenment thought. There are huge differences, and if you’ve simply read broadly and/or traveled this is completely evident even if you don’t know another language. Now try to imagine translating a text as a member of a committee, with everyone’s biases in the mix. The thing that is usually done is to assemble a committee of people who are theologically on the same page, so there are fewer contrary opinions to deal with – and it’s likely that things get missed because fewer alternatives are considered.

Another aspect of Bible translation that most people don’t understand is that most Bible translators are not widely read in ancient literature; they have concentrated on the Scriptural texts only. Therefore, their ability to translate “accurately” is limited by not knowing enough about the language/thought of that time period. Even though there are more textual examples of the New Testament extant than any other ancient writing, a person must have read very broadly from the period in order to assess what words, phrases and idioms actually mean.

I’m not saying Bible translators or dishonest; I don’t believe that at all. But stuff happens. The most egregious example I can think of is the word “sarx”, which simply means “flesh” – the stuff our bodies are made of. In the NIV this is rendered as “sin nature”, which is a spectacularly wrong translation but reflects and imports the theological perspective of the translators, who believe, as most Protestants do, that our very human nature was completely wrecked in the Fall. (That was not the view of the earliest Christian theologians, but they are ignored for reasons it would take too long to go into here.) St Paul doesn’t always mean “the stuff our bodies are made of when he writes “sarx”; sometimes he is clearly referring to something else and using “sarx” as a figure of speech. We need notes to tell us the difference, rather than simply inserting theological opinion into the text.

The older I get, the more I trust the translations of people who are Classicists – those whose foundational study has been basically ancient literature, like D.B. Hart – or people like N.T. Wright, whose area of study, 1st century history, has necessitated familiarity with the texts of that century, those of the 2-3 centuries before that, and at least a century after. Scot McKnight’s new NT translation falls into this category as well; I don’t really like the “chunkiness” of some of McKnight’s renderings, and he does his own insertions of theological points of view, but like The Message, it shakes things up and makes us think. And The Message remains one of my favorites, because Peterson actually did have years of training as a Classicist. The Message is a legitimate translation. And the King James, with all its vocabulary issues and theological bias, is better than most modern translations at simply giving us the text.

This personal knowledge, and everything I’ve read on the matter, has led me to prefer translations that simply set out the text as it is, to the best of the translator’s ability, and then add footnotes to clarify. For example, the word “slave”. Slavery in the ancient world could be brutal if you worked in the mines, or it could be fairly easy if you were a house slave with a reasonable master, but you still were the property of someone else. You can’t get all that thought into every sentence where the word “slave” appears. A note or glossary entry is needed about slavery so that the reader can simply read the text. Same for “Jews”: In the Gospel of John, students of the text from all theological opinions, or none, have pretty much concluded that it should be translated “Judaeans” – that is, the residents of the southern Palestinian province of Judaea, rather than Samaritans or Galileans, so not generically all “Jews”. Furthermore, when the article “the” is added, the meaning becomes more specific, denoting those who had the most influence/power among those in Judaea, (some of whom were hand-in-glove with the Roman occupiers) whether they were pro-Roman (Saduccess) or not (Pharisees). So, please translate this is as “Judaeans” so the text flows while I’m reading, and give me an explanatory note so I can understand that this is not in any way, shape or form “anti-Semitic”.

Finally, I believe everyone should have the Septuagint (LXX) version among their Bible study tools. Because Greek was becoming the everyday language, Jewish scholars translated their Scriptures into koine Greek in about AD250, and this was the most widely read and distributed version (yes, there were others) in Jesus’ day. All of the NT quotes of the OT are the Septuagint version. Even though it is not “directly from the Hebrew” it reflects an older textual tradition, and was the OT part of the Christian Bible until the Reformation. It is actually more “accurate” in strict translation terms, and was the version the earliest Christians relied on to make their points about the meaning of who Jesus was and what he did. (As the Christian Scriptures were assembled, Christians counted what we know as “apocrypha” with their Scriptures, but they also did not give the same “weight” to every verse of Scripture; some books and passages were more important than others, especially in terms of how we understand Jesus.) The Masoretic text, which is the main source of modern OT translations, developed between AD300/400 and AD900, partially in response to how the Jews saw Christians using “their” Scriptures. The Masoretic text, even though it’s Hebrew, is not “the Bible Jesus knew”. Again, those later Jewish scholars were not trying to be dishonest with their translation, but one example: The word “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 is rendered “young woman” (understood to be of marriageable age) in Hebrew-English Scriptures used by Jews, and most Masoretic-based modern Christian translations, because that’s the basic meaning of the word “almah”. However, in the Septuagint it is pointedly rendered as “parthene”, the (only) word for “virgin” in Greek; this is particularly indicating a young woman of marriageable age who has “not yet known man”. The difference as relates to Jesus is significant, to say the least. In a few places the Masoretic is a better translation of the Hebrew, but I always check the LXX first.

Over the last 25 years I’ve stayed far away from anything Grudem has had a hand in, so I would never use the ESV anyhow. I also don’t like that it’s favored among Neo-Calvinists. For the last few years my go-to “Bible” has been this group of books – yes, all of them:

RSV Greek-English New Testament
DB Hart New Testament
Lexham Septuagint
NETS Septuagint
New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha

It takes a little longer to rassle them all, but I am interested in understanding Scripture with the mind of the early Church, as well as good modern scholarship. I believe this collection, along with a few other reference tools, is the best help for realizing that desire.

Dana

Muff Potter,

my cousin was given a 3 foot wheel of parmesan from italy as a wedding present.

greatest gift ever.

Dee said,

I have become deeply concerned about the political climate in our country- on both sides of the political divide. A reporter once told me I was wise to ban political discussions from this blog. I agree. I make an exception for a thoughtful conversation on Christian Nationalism. However, that usually devolves into discussing one candidate while I see this problem on both sides.

Dee, I’m with you, and I won’t mention any names, other than two authors that have come to mind lately.

One is the prophet Ezekiel, who in chapter 34 rails against the “shepherds” (or pastors) who were neglecting or abusing the flock. “Thus saith the Lord,” said Ezekiel, and they didn’t listen. Everyone go and read that.

The other is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” He wrote, “I have been disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of
course, there are some notable exceptions… But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say that as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say it as a minister of the gospel who loves the church, who was nurtured in its bosom, who has been sustained by its Spiritual blessings, and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.”

Then: “Things are different now. The contemporary church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often
the arch supporter of the status quo.”

And: “But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. I meet young people every day whose disappointment with the church has risen to outright disgust.”

People didn’t listen to Dr. King any more than they listened to Ezekiel. Then they shot him.

Let’s all pray for this sick old country and the churches within. This is getting more and more serious.

I.

Debating point please:

The codependency concept has the advantage that it is not ad hominem and does not “other” (unlike APA style epithets).

Many of you mentioned the sickening feeling you got on beholding churches. That is your codependency radar.

II.

Point of information and discussion point please:

What was Manifest Destiny and did its adherents up till our present lives consume sour grapes, setting the teeth of those after them on edge?

(Does taking the “segregationist” label off a university door change the “intellectual” mindset?)

(Does Andrew Jackson get a mention these days?)

elastigirl: my cousin was given a 3 foot wheel of parmesan from italy as a wedding present.

greatest gift ever.

Cheese envy here.

Hi Dainca, This month I’m wrapping up a graduate course on biblical textual criticism. Your comments are absolutely correct, although I’m not sure I agree with you re The Message. IMO, it has been difficult for me to read, and when I set all my Bibles side-by-side, that’s the one that leaves me scratching my head.

As for Grudem, I’ve had issues with him for years, especially when he changed his views on divorce once a family friend mentioned ten years of abuse. See: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/podcasts/quick-to-listen/wayne-grudem-divorce-abuse-complementarianism.html Funny how that happens….This is one of several articles on the topic.
What irks me is that a quick examination of his updated revision of his “Systematic Theology” text didn’t seem to include his changed views. To further complicate matters, he has taught hundreds of seminary students his previously intolerant views.
After having to help several women pick up the pieces of their lives after sitting under the teaching of pastors who took his classes, I’m definitely not a fan. Mixing Piper and Grudem? Bad, bad mix.

dainca: The most egregious example I can think of is the word “sarx”, which simply means “flesh” – the stuff our bodies are made of. In the NIV this is rendered as “sin nature”, which is a spectacularly wrong translation but reflects and imports the theological perspective of the translators, who believe, as most Protestants do, that our very human nature was completely wrecked in the Fall.

I agree.
I no longer believe in this alleged ‘sin nature’ any more than I believe that the ears of hippopatamuses are vestigal wings from their ancestors.
We also have a ‘divine-nature’, but you (generic you) never hear about that in hard-core conservative Protestantism.
I some ways, Jewish thought makes more sense to me than conservative evangelical dogma.

Since this is a free for all, if it is an acceptable question and not an imposition, may I ask HUG where the handle “Headless Unicorn Guy” came from? How is one supposed to tell that it is a unicorn if it has no head?

(Feel free not to answer if it’s too awkward.)

Having seen a UAP, I know they’re real. Don’t know what we saw, I was Air Force reserve in university so I know aircraft, it wasn’t like any aircraft I’d seen.

I doubt it’s aliens. If any civilization has developed that kind of technology then we lost. It doesn’t end well when there’s a significant technology gap in civilizations, just ask the caribe Indians or the Aztecs or any of the colonized people on earth. Christianity was a big part of that process, being the dominant religion of the colonizers. The aliens probably will have their own religion, and will proselytize. Our descendants could wind up worshipping “The Mighty Tharg” – Borag thung, earthlings!

Sarah (aka Wild Honey):
Since this is a free for all, if it is an acceptable question and not an imposition, may I ask HUG where the handle “Headless Unicorn Guy” came from? How is one supposed to tell that it is a unicorn if it has no head?

(Feel free not to answer if it’s too awkward.)

It comes from this 1999 art piece and story:
https://alanloewen.blogspot.com/2016/04/conversation-with-dying-unicorn.html

(At least I think it was 1999. Or 2021. What year is “An CCVII” on the French Revolutionary calendar?)

I have a fairly common name and started using a handle when I was commenting on a blog (either this one or old Internet Monk) where two of the commenters’ handles were the same as my real name. And one of those two was a troll you did not want to be associated with/mistaken for.

Jack,
Is “UAP” proounced “You-Ap” or “Ooo-Ap”?

Samuel Conner: Here’s the article (pre-print, not yet subjected to review; presumably will soon be submitted to a journal, if not already submitted)

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.28.550957v1.full.pdf

Samuel Conner,

Thank you for providing the link to the article Epigenetic liquid biopsies reveal elevated vascular endothelial cell turnover and erythropoiesis in asymptomatic COVID-19 patients….while I didn’t understand all of it, I do understand it’s potential significance.

Now I’m off to take a look at the other link in your comment — which I don’t know anything about yet because I haven’t finished reading your comment. 🙂

Samuel Conner: and here’s some commentary that may be more accessible than the article itself.

https://icemsg.org/2023/08/03/an-important-preprint/

Samuel Conner

Thank you for providing the link to the article An Important Preprint. You’re right, the article is more accessible reading, and the two very short explanatory videos are excellent — even though I watched them without listening to them. 🙂

Muff Potter: How’s this for a contribution to the free-for-all?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-dps-launches-probe-amid-allegations-troopers-told/story?id=101407698#:~:text=The%20Inspector%20General%20of%20the%20Texas%20Department%20of,DPS%20spokesperson%20Travis%20Considine%20confirmed%20to%20ABC%20News.

I was both angered and saddened

Muff Potter,

Thank you for the link to the ABC News article Texas DPS launches probe amid allegations troopers were told to push back migrant children into Rio Grande.

I’d add more words to your comment on the the article, but they’d all end up under the one phrase expletive-deleted.

And there’s no mention about the environmental impact of putting razor wire in the Rio Grande river.

Sarah (aka Wild Honey): where the handle

Maybe everyone should explain their moniker. “Wild Honey”? What we put on toast, or, one’s beloved? Do tell.

Headless Unicorn Guy: Only DEMONS! DEMONS! DEMONS!” Including one lore that any UFO sighting or Alien Abduction can be stopped in its tracks by Rebuking it in the Name of Jesus Christ. I’m not going to go down the Hybrids & Nephilim rabbit hole; that one goes too deep.

As if Jesus of Nazareth is at their whim and fancy, just by coming up with the right magic incantations.

Muff Potter: As if Jesus of Nazareth is at their whim and fancy, just by coming up with the right magic incantations.

Jesus may have been an alien per Chris De Burgh.

Jack: Jesus may have been an alien per Chris De Burgh.

And there are times when I have unicorns emerging from my … well, you get the picture.
Why is it these days, that more absurdly fanciful it is, the more it’s entertained by large segments of the populace?

Headless Unicorn Guy,

Thank you for sharing, that was a really touching story.

Headless Unicorn Guy: SF explores POSSIBLE futures, possible alternate pasts, possible alternate presents.
A better way to describe it is the genre of the “What If?”

Happen to be reading “Jaran” by Kate Elliot for the first time, and she made the same observation in the introduction.

Sarah (aka Wild Honey): “Jesus did not come to earth to start a religion. He came to earth to restore a relationship that had been lost in the Garden of Eden.”

Beautiful statement and thanks so much for sharing your interesting story. God bless.

Ava Aaronson: Maybe everyone should explain their moniker. “Wild Honey”? What we put on toast, or, one’s beloved? Do tell.

I was named for my grandfather who went by “Jack”.

dainca,

If accepted, this is even longer and offers an alternative perspective.

“ σάρξ G4922 (sarx), flesh, body, human being, human nature, sinful nature; σάρκινος G4921 (sarkinos) consisting of flesh, material, human; σαρκικός G4920 (sarkikos), pertaining to the flesh, material, human
Concepts: Body; Body Part; People; Sin
GL 1 The noun σάρξ (of uncertain etym., though poss. related to the IE root *twerk-, “to cut”) occurs 6× in Homer, all but once in the pl. (implying “fleshly parts”); thus we read that the Cyclops killed two men, dismembered their bodies, and then proceeded to eat ἔγκατά τε σάρκας τε καὶ ὀστέα μυελόεντα, “the entrails and the flesh and the marrow-filled bones” (Od. 9.289–93). Subsequently the sg. is used with growing freq. and the term is applied more generally to animals, incl. fish, as well as to the edible part of fruit. By metonymy the word can be used of the body as a whole (e.g., contrasted with νοῦς G3808, “mind,” Aesch. Sept. 622 [sg.]; of a dead body, Eurip. Hipp. 1030–31 [pl.]). The adj. σάρκινος, “[composed] of flesh, flesh-like,” is used infreq. prior to the LXX (e.g., ἐν σαρκίνοις σώμασι, “in fleshly bodies,” Plato Leg. 906c; because boxers are σάρκινοι, “[men] of flesh,” they hurt when they are struck, Aristot. Eth. nic. 1117b4–5). The alternate form σαρκικός, barely attested prior to the NT, is said to mean “pertaining to the flesh,” but a clear semantic distinction between the two forms is difficult to ascertain.
2 Transitoriness is a characteristic mark of σάρξ. Flesh and bones cannot be held together when the θυμός G2596 (“soul, mind, passion”) and the ψυχή G6034 (“soul, life”) fly away (Od. 11.219–22). The true nature of God, says Epict., is not flesh or landed property or fame (μὴ γένοιτο, “far from it!”), but rather νοῦς, ἐπιστήμη, λόγος ὀρθός, “intelligence, knowledge, right reason” (2.18.2). Accordingly, the imperishable nature of human beings is often contrasted with perishable flesh. The “mass of flesh [ὁ τῶν σαρκῶν ὄγκος]” that is eventually buried cannot be identified with a person’s true being (Plato Leg. 959c; cf. “the strange garment of the flesh,” Empedocles Frg. 126).
Epicurus, however, gave a new turn to this idea. Within the framework of his atomism (derived from Democritus), he viewed pleasure or desire (ἡδονή G2454) as residing in the σάρξ (e.g., Sent. 4 [τὸ ἡδόμενον κατὰ σάρκα], 18 [ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ἡ ἡδονή]). It is important to listen to the voice of the flesh or body when it says not to hunger or thirst (cf. Gnomologium Vaticanum Epicureum frg. 33; see G. Arrighetti, Epicuro: Opere, 2nd ed. [1973]). Now the flesh regards pleasure as limitless, but the mind (διάνοια G1379) grasps the limits of the body and leads to a perfect life (Sent. 18, 20). These ideas were popularized and inevitably debased, being depicted, esp. by their opponents of the Platonic school, as favoring evil desire. According to them, the cravings and lusts of the body defile the soul, which has a share in the divine. Epicurus was obliged to defend himself against the charge that he approved intemperance. The anti-Epicurean polemic was widely spread in Hellenism and it penetrated deeply into Jewish thought.
JL 1 In the LXX σάρξ occurs c. 210×, esp. in Genesis (over 30×) and Sirach (almost 25×); it appears in the pl. c. 80× (incl. almost all the instances of the word in Job and 4 Maccabees), partic. when used in the strict lit. sense. In most instances (c. 140×), σάρξ renders בָּשָׂר H1414; this Heb. term is also transl. with κρέας G3200 c. 75× (consistently with ref. to food, incl. sacrificial meat), though nearly 50 of these are found in Exodus–Deuteronomy. The adj. σάρκινος is used only 5× (e.g., 2 Chr 32:8; Ezek 36:26). The compound σαρκοφαγέω (“to eat flesh”) and its cognate noun σαρκοφαγία are found in only one passage (4 Macc 5:8, 14, 26). Note also the previously unattested forms ἐκσαρκίζω, “to strip off the flesh” (Ezek 24:4; Heb. differently), and μεγαλόσαρκος, “great of flesh” (16:26; lit. rendering of a Heb. phrase referring to the penis [see below] and indicating lust, but symbolic of idolatry).
The usage of σάρξ in the LXX freq. corresponds to what we find in extrabib. writings. It can occasionally denote the flesh of animals (e.g., of a bull, Lev 4:11; of horses, Isa 31:3), though, as already suggested, κρέας is preferred in these cases. More commonly σάρξ refers to human flesh. In the story of creation God is said to have taken one of the ribs of the man and closed up its place with flesh (Gen 2:21). Goliath boasted that he would give David’s “flesh to the birds and the wild animals” (1 Sam 17:44). Satan asked the Lord to “strike [Job’s] flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face” (Job 2:5). God rebukes the Israelite leaders because they “tear the skin from my people and the flesh from their bones” (Mic 3:2; of course, the use here is fig., as also in v. 3).
It is apparent, however, that Heb. בָּשָׂר occurs in a much wider range of contexts than σάρξ does in Gk. writings generally. To the extent that the LXX translators preserve the equivalence between these two terms, σάρξ inevitably undergoes a semantic development. On the one hand, σάρξ can take on a more specific sense by being used euphemistically for the male sexual organ (of an animal in Ezek 23:20; see above on μεγαλόσαρκος), esp. in the context of circumcision (“uncircumcised in the flesh,” Jer 9:25; Ezek 44:7, 9; note also “the flesh of the foreskin,” e.g., Gen 17:11–14; Lev 12:3; but in 15:2–3 the LXX uses σῶμα G5393, “body”). On the other hand, the term, by metonymy, can be used broadly of the person as a whole: “O God, you are my God, I seek you, / my soul thirsts for you; / my flesh faints for you” (Ps 63:1 NRSV [LXX 62:2]; NIV, “I thirst for you, / my whole being longs for you”; cf. 73:26 [72:26], where σάρξ renders שְׁאֵר H8638). It is found also in idiomatic expressions that indicate kindred, such as “he is our brother and our flesh” (Gen 37:27; NIV, “our own flesh and blood”). Still more comprehensively, the sg. σάρξ can mean “human beings” (Ps 56:5 [55:5]), and the freq. phrase πᾶσα σάρξ (Heb. כָּל־בָּשָׂר, “all flesh”) refers to humanity as a whole (e.g., Gen 6:12; Num 16:22; Job 34:15 [in par. with πᾶς βροτός, “every mortal”]; Ps 65:2 [64:3]; Isa 66:23; even animals can be included, Gen 6:19 et al.).
It has been argued that, since בָּשָׂר can be used with ref. to the whole person, the anthropological conception of the OT is different from that of Gk. thinkers. Linguistic usage, however, is not a reliable guide to philosophical commitment. The claim that the Israelites, over against the Greeks, viewed human beings as flesh in their essence requires clearer evidence (such as actual statements) than what the vocab. can provide. One can hardly doubt, however, that the OT writers give expression to the fleeting character of human life in a distinctive way. For them, בָּשָׂר connotes the human being in his or her transitoriness as one who suffers fright, sickness, death. Thus Isaiah says: “All people are like grass, / and all their faithfulness is like the flowers of the field. / The grass withers and the flowers fall, / because the breath of the Lord blows on them. / Surely the people are grass” (Isa 40:6–7). Sennacherib’s Assyrian horde is called “arm of flesh,” which is puny compared with God’s power (2 Chr 32:8 [LXX βραχίονες σάρκινοι, “fleshly arms”]; cf. Jer 17:5). God “remembered that they [the Israelites] were but flesh, / a passing breeze that does not return” (Ps 78:39 [77:39]); therefore he forgave their iniquity (v. 38).
2 In postbib. Jud. human carnality was closely connected with sinful behavior (cf. Gen 8:21; Isa 31:3), but the flesh was not regarded as the actual cause of sin.
(a) In the Rule of the Community from Qumran we read: “If I stagger through the iniquity of the flesh [בעוון בשר], my judgment [or justification, משפטי] will be through the justice [or righteousness, בצדקת] of God, which endures for ever” (1QS XI, 12). The meaning is prob. that human beings, insofar as they are merely flesh, belong to the community of wickedness, for a little earlier the writer says, “I belong to wicked mankind, to the company of ungodly flesh [סוד בשר עול, lit., ‘the counsel of flesh of perversity’]” (XI, 9) The usual counterpart to flesh is not spirit (the spirit of holiness is found side by side with the spirit of wickedness and of the flesh, 1QS IV, 20–21); it is God himself or his justifying righteousness that stands over against the flesh.
(b) In rabb. usage we find two characteristic departures from the OT. Human beings in their transitoriness are now called “flesh and blood” (instanced for the first time in Sir 14:18). We read, e.g., that “the nature of flesh and blood is not like that of the Holy One, blessed be he. It is the nature of flesh and blood to be outlived by its works, but the Holy One, blessed be he, outlives his works” (b. Ber. 10a). Perhaps more important is the freq. use of גוּף in favor of בָּשָׂר (cf. TDNT 7:116). Behind this development, it has been argued, stands a new anthropological conception of the body as a vessel that at any time can be possessed by a different spirit. In this way the body is not devalued, since in the final judgment God will fetch the soul and place it in the body and judge the two together (b. Sanh. 91a). But the body no longer seems to denote the human being as a whole. “All creatures made from heaven derive their soul and body from heaven, and all creatures made from the earth derive their soul and body from the earth. Man is the sole exception: his soul is derived from heaven, his body from the earth. If then man obeys the law and does the will of the heavenly Father, then he is as the higher creatures … but if he does not fulfill the law and do the will of the heavenly Father, then he is as the lower creatures” (Sipre Deut. 305, 233, 2). A Hel. oriental influence is apparent here. But beside it, the OT usage may still be found (cf. Str-B 1:581).
(c) Statements inclining in the direction of cosmological dualism are found in Philo (who uses σάρξ almost 100×). For him God is a being without flesh or body. Accordingly, he can be perceived only by a soul that is without flesh or body (Deus 52–56). For the soul the body (the flesh) is a burden and servitude, a coffin and an urn. Freedom from the flesh through asceticism is thus important, for otherwise the soul is hampered in its upward flight. Guilt begins with the soul’s steadfast continuance in the flesh (cf. Leg. 3.152). Philo is correspondingly aware that the soul has passions that war with reason and beget evil when it is overcome by the flesh (Deus 52). For the body with its passions incites people to commit sin. At the same time, it remains conceivable that the fleshly mass (σάρκινος ὄγκος) may be taken into service, just as sandals are used for the feet (Sacr. 63).
NT 1 The noun σάρξ occurs more than 145× in the NT, but c. 90 of the occurrences are found in the Pauline corpus (incl. 26× in Romans and 18× in Galatians); among the other writings it is used most freq. in the Gospel of John (13×). The pl. is found only in Jas 5:3 and 7× in Revelation (Rev 17:16; 19:18 [5×], 21), and in all of these instances the context has to do with eating flesh. The adj. σάρκινος occurs 4× (all in Paul except for Heb 7:16), and the hitherto rare alternate form σαρκικός 7× (all in Paul except for 1 Pet 2:11). Note, however, that in the TR σάρκινος is found only at 2 Cor 3:3 (σαρκικός elsewhere); in addition, σαρκικοί is the TR reading at 1 Cor 3:4 (where the modern critical texts have ἄνθρωποι, “men”). (The term κρέας G3200 occurs 2× in sim. contexts with the sense “meat,” Rom 14:21; 1 Cor 8:13.)
2 Paul uses σάρξ in a wide range of contexts. (a) In the strictly physical sense, the term can be applied generally to the flesh of both human beings and animals, incl. birds and fish (1 Cor 15:39, though the point here is that not all flesh is the same; cf. also the ref. to “tablets of fleshly hearts” [opp. “tablets of stone”] in 2 Cor 3:3). It is used of the human body in contexts that speak of illness (2 Cor 12:7 [though “the thorn in the flesh” has been interpreted in various ways; see σκόλοψ G5022]; Gal 4:13–14). In 2 Cor 7:5, “our flesh had no rest,” physical exertion and affliction are prominent, though the context suggests a broader sense (“conflicts on the outside, fears within”; cf. also 1 Cor 7:28). People are naturally concerned with feeding and taking care of their own bodies (Eph 5:29). As in the OT, σάρξ occurs in contexts dealing with circumcision (Rom 2:28; Gal 6:12–13 [with a play on words; see below, section (d)]; Eph 2:11; Col 2:11, 13; see περιτέμνω G4362).
(b) The use of the term in extended senses is more common. It can denote consanguinity, as when Paul describes the physical descendants of Abraham with the phrase τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκός, “the children of the flesh” (contrasted with “the children of the promise,” Rom 9:8), or when he refers to his Jewish compatriots as “my flesh” (11:14; see also below, sect. (c), on κατὰ σάρκα). By metonymy, the term can be used with ref. to the person as a whole, but the physical aspect remains important; thus when Paul speaks of Christians who have not seen τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί, “my face in the flesh” (Col 2:1; NRSV, “face to face”), he means, “have not met me personally” (NIV). The description of Onesimus as a brother “both in the flesh and in the Lord” (Phlm 16 NRSV) is likely a ref. to the shared human bond (cf. NIV, “both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord”).
In a few places Paul uses the LXX phrase πᾶσα σάρξ, “all flesh,” with ref. to all humanity, but always with a negative, yielding the sense “no one” (1 Cor 1:29; in Rom 3:20 and Gal 2:16 we have a clear allusion to Ps 143:2 [142:2], which however reads πᾶς ζῶν, “every living one”). In addition, the apostle uses the combination σάρξ καὶ αἷμα, “flesh and blood,” to mean “human beings,” but with the nuance of frailty, weakness, or inferiority in contrast to God (Gal 1:16; αἷμα καὶ σάρξ contrasted with evil forces in Eph 6:12; the sense is somewhat different in 1 Cor 15:10). Although the two terms are often found together in a lit. sense in medical and biological contexts, the use of the phrase with ref. to human beings is first attested in Sir 17:31, then in the NT (in addition to Paul, Matt 16:17; Heb 2:14) and in rabb. writings (see above, JL 2 (b); the sim. combination in Philo Her. 57 is not a real parallel).
(c) Special attention must be given to the distinctively Pauline expression κατὰ σάρκα, “according to the flesh” (20×, but rarely before Paul, and where it does the ref. is to the physical substance and to the body). The apostle uses it in some cases in what appears to be a somewhat neutral sense, as when he speaks of “masters according to the flesh” (i.e., “earthly masters,” Eph 6:5; Col 3:22) or when he describes the Israelites as τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα, lit., “my brothers, my kindred according to the flesh” (Rom 9:3; NIV, “my people, those of my own race”); he adds that “from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah” (9:5 NRSV; NIV, “from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah”).
In such passages, however, there is an implicit contrast with that which is not according to the flesh. He makes the point explicitly at the beginning of Romans, where he describes Christ as one who “became of the seed of David according to the flesh, [but] was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead” (Rom 1:3–4, lit. transl.; see discussion s.v. ὁρίζω G3988 NT 3). At the very least, a distinction is made between that which is earthly and temporary and that which has greater and lasting significance. Thus, when he describes Abraham as “our forefather according to the flesh” (4:1), the qualification “according to the flesh” would be superfluous if Paul did not wish to intimate that, in a more important sense, Abraham is the forefather of those who believe, whether or not they have descended physically from the patriarch (4:11–12).
This concept of a physical versus a spiritual kinship or lineage had been expressed differently earlier in the letter (Rom 2:28, “A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical”). It is then expanded in Rom 9:6–8, which states that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” and that “the children of the promise,” not “the children of the flesh,” are regarded as the true seed (cf. 2:29, “a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit”; note also Gal 4:23, 29). Likewise in 1 Cor 10:18 there is no need to say “Israel according to the flesh” unless there is an Israel that is not according to the flesh (cf. Gal 6:16, “the Israel of God”).
Elsewhere the negative associations of the phrase κατὰ σάρκα are stronger. In 2 Cor 10:3 we read, Ἐν σαρκὶ γὰρ περιπατοῦντες οὐ κατὰ σάρκα στρατευόμεθα, lit., “For [though] walking in the flesh we do not war according to the flesh” (cf. ὅπλα σαρκικά, “fleshly weapons,” in v. 4, but note that σαρκικός does not have a disparaging sense in Rom 15:27 [of material or financial matters]). The NRSV renders, “Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards”; and the NIV, “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does” (see also 2 Cor 3:2; cf. 1:17; 11:18). However we may wish to transl. the verse, it is clear that κατὰ σάρκα has a pejorative sense; indeed, those who are “wise according to the flesh” (1 Cor 1:26; NRSV and NIV, “wise by human standards”) may be said to possess merely “the wisdom of this age [σοφίαν … τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου]” (2:6; cf. also σοφία σαρκική, lit., “fleshly wisdom,” 2 Cor 1:12 [NIV, “worldly wisdom”]).
Even Jesus Christ himself must be seen with new eyes rather than simply in accordance with old pre-Christian expectations and values: “So from now on we regard [οἴδαμεν, lit., ‘know’] no one from a worldly point of view [κατὰ σάρκα]. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer” (2 Cor 5:16). The contrast takes on a specifically ethical and religious significance in Rom 8, where Paul sets up an opp. between κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα: Christian believers “do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires” (8:4–5; cf. also vv. 12–13 and see πνεῦμα G4460). Thus the new life in the Spirit is paralleled by a renunciation of human efforts at moral and religious achievement.
(d) Even when the phrase κατὰ σάρκα is not used, we find many passages where σάρξ gives expression to negative concepts. To begin with, the associations of the term with physical or ethnic Israel and esp. with circumcision lead the apostle to say that the Judaizers compel Gentiles to be circumcised because they “want to impress people by means of the flesh” (Gal 6:12; see also v. 13). Here σάρξ points not only to the physical aspect of the procedure but also to the personal pride and self-assurance that many of Paul’s Jewish contemporaries had in their national and religious identity. In opp. to that, Paul says to the Philippians: “For it is we [i.e., Christian believers] who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh [οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες]” (Phil 3:3; note also πεποίθησιν ἐν σαρκί and πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί in v. 4). Coming within the scope of flesh-confidence is not only circumcision, but also pure Israelite lineage and obedience to the Mosaic law (3:5–6). The term is thus expanded to cover anything that may be regarded as one’s own righteousness, in contrast to the divine righteousness that comes through faith in Christ (3:7–9; see δικαιοσύνη G1466; πιστεύω G4409).
But there is more. In fact, σάρξ can function almost as shorthand for the present evil world and for human existence apart from God, both of which have a drive that is opposed to God. The flesh not only serves as an occasion for sin but also becomes entangled in it. Accordingly, Paul can draw up a catalogue of vices that he characterizes as τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, “the works of the flesh” (Gal 5:19–21), i.e., sinful attitudes and actions motivated by ἐπιθυμία σαρκός, “the desire/lust of the flesh” (5:16; cf. Rom 13:14). Above all, in Gal 5:17 he is able to say, “For the flesh desires [ἐπιθυμεῖ] what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other.” It is worth noting that in Eph 2:3, which describes immoral conduct as living ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκός (“the passions/lusts of the flesh”), the terms σάρξ and διάνοια G1379 (“mind, thought”) are then coordinated: ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, lit., “doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts.”
These statements should not be equated with the anti-Epicurean polemic of the time (see above, GL 2), for in Pauline thought σάρξ is not merely a ref. to the body as the seat of desire but rather denotes the self as a whole in opp. to God (even the popular rendering “sinful nature,” though defensible in some respects, may improperly suggest a partition of the self into two distinct natures). Thus when the apostle writes, “I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh [ἐν ἐμοί, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου]” (Rom 7:18 NRSV), he is identifying the σάρξ with his whole person (but always with ref. to physical existence; cf. the discussion s.v. σῶμα G5393 NT 3). This point is not contradicted when he says subsequently, “So then, with my mind [see νοῦς G3808] I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin” (7:25 NRSV; cf. σάρκινος in 7:14). The precise meaning of this concluding statement depends largely on one’s understanding of the passage as a whole, but one can hardly infer that Paul thought he consisted of two parts, one mental that is good, and one physical that is evil (as though it were poss. simultaneously to obey God’s law with the mind and disobey it with the body). He is rather giving expression to a sense of conflict between what he knows to be right and what he actually does (cf. C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols. [1994–98], 1:369–70).
An understanding of this theological conception of σάρξ helps to explain the impotence of the Mosaic law (see νόμος G3795). The law “was weakened by the flesh” (Rom 8:3a) because the flesh uses it as a means of self-assertion against God. But because God “condemned sin in the flesh” (8:3c; cf. Eph 2:14; Col 1:22) by sending Christ “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3b), believers are set free from sin by the Spirit (8:2) and are able to fulfill the law as they walk according to the Spirit (8:4). Their minds are set not on the things of the flesh (cf. Col 2:18) but on the things of the Spirit (Rom 8:5), yielding life and peace instead of death (8:6). In this sense believers are no longer ἐν σαρκί, “in the flesh” (8:8–9a; cf. 7:5; but note that Paul also can use the phrase “to be/live in the flesh” in a nonpejorative sense with ref. to the present life; see 2 Cor 10:3; Gal 2:20; Phil 1:22–24; 1 Tim 3:16). Rather, the Spirit dwells in them and thus they are ἐν πνεύματι, “in the Spirit” (Rom 8:9b). Thus they must not be σάρκινοι (1 Cor 3:1, defined as “infants in Christ”) or σαρκικοί (3:3, defined as “walking according to man”; NIV, “acting like mere humans”).
3 The non-Pauline uses of the σάρξ word group may be dealt with more briefly. (a) From the OT heritage comes Matt 16:17, where “flesh and blood,” i.e., human beings, are contrasted with God. The expression “one flesh” (Matt 19:5–6 par. Mark 10:8; also Eph 5:31) derives from Gen 2:24; although its meaning includes sexual intercourse, it primarily signifies unitary existence, a complete partnership of man and woman that cannot be broken up without damage to the partners in it (see γαμέω G1138). Another OT phrase, “all flesh,” occurs in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24:22 par. Mark 13:20). The saying in Matt 26:41 (par. Mark 14:38) that “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” is not an OT quotation, and some believe that it comes from a Pauline tradition or from Hel. wisdom lit.; but V. Taylor (The Gospel according to St. Mark [1952], 555) sees it anticipated by Num 27:16; Isa 31:3. In Luke 24:39 the risen Christ assures his disciples he is not a (disembodied) spirit, as evidenced by the fact that he has “flesh and bones.” On the day of Pentecost the apostle Peter quotes Ps 16:10 (15:10) and proclaims that Jesus, after his death, was not left in Hades and that his flesh (i.e., his body, referring to the whole man) did not see corruption (Acts 2:31).
(b) The Gospel of John too uses the expression “all flesh” (John 17:2). We read further that people should not judge Jesus κατὰ τὴν σάρκα (8:15; NRSV and NIV, “by human standards”; cf. 7:24, κατʼ ὄψιν, “by appearances”). Otherwise the term σάρξ plays an important role in three passages. John tells us that those who have believed in Christ have become God’s children, born not “of blood” (NIV, “of natural descent”) or “of the will of the flesh” (NIV, “of human decision”) or “of the will of man” (NIV, “a husband’s will”), but of God (1:13); and in the next verse we are told that “the Word became flesh” (1:14, i.e., took on a human body). Then, in the well-known conversation with Nicodemus (3:6), Jesus distinguishes sharply between physical birth (NRSV, “What is born of the flesh is flesh”) and the birth from above that is the result of the Spirit’s work (sim. 6:63 NIV, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life”).
Finally, the term occurs 6× in John 6:51–58, where Jesus equates his own flesh with the bread from heaven that one must eat to live forever. The entry of the Word as flesh among all flesh (1:14) reveals how estranged the world is from the Word and so from the true life. The startling words in 6:51–58 should be understood against this background. Those who eat the flesh of the Revealer confess that only the coming of the Word in the flesh can redeem them (cf. TDNT 7:139–40; see ἄρτος G788).
(c) In the Johannine letters the confession that Jesus has come in the flesh separates belief from unbelief (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7). John’s opponents no longer wished to associate the Revealer with the flesh that they had rejected. Moreover, this confession asserts the historicity of the incarnation. In 1 John 2:16 “the lust of the flesh [ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός]” is identified—along with “the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life”—with that which is in the world.
(d) The letter to the Hebrews makes use of σάρξ, first, to indicate the human nature that Christ assumed. Thus we read that Christ for a while was made lower than the angels and so shared in “flesh and blood” (Heb 2:14). These were “the days of his flesh” (5:7 NRSV; NIV, “the days of Jesus’ life on earth”). Through his flesh (NIV, “body”) he made for us a way into the heavenly sanctuary (10:20). More broadly, the author speaks of δικαιώματα σαρκός, lit., “requirements of the flesh” (9:10; NRSV, “regulations for the body”; NIV, “external regulations”), and says that the blood of sacrificial animals purifies the flesh, i.e., makes people “outwardly clean” (9:13 NIV; in contrast, Christ’s blood purifies the conscience, 9:14). The adj. σάρκινος is used with ἐντολή G1953 (“command”) as a ref. to the physical descent of the Levitical priesthood, contrasted with the eternal priesthood of Melchizedek/Christ (7:16).
(e) Peter uses the expression πᾶσα σάρξ, “all flesh,” in his quotation of Isa 40:6 (1 Pet 1:24), and the adj. σαρκικός to describe the sinful desires that attack the soul (2:11; cf. 2 Pet 2:10, 18). In a difficult section (1 Pet 3:18–4:6) he uses σάρξ a half dozen times. We read that Christ “suffered in the body” and thus “is done with sin” (4:1) and that he “was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit” (3:18, prob. referring respectively to his earthly and exalted states; see K. H. Jobes, 1 Peter [2005], 238–39). For those who believe, baptism may be said to cleanse not the body but the conscience (3:21; cf. Heb 9:13–14, above; and see βάπτω G966 NT 4). They too suffer in the body and are done with sin so that while in the body they may live for God’s will (1 Pet 4:1–2). It is disputed whether 1 Pet 4:6 refers to the same proclamation described in 3:19; in the light of 4:5, however, it seems likely that the dead mentioned in 4:6 and who are said to be judged κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκί (lit., “according to men in the flesh”; NIV, “according to human standards in regard to the body”) should be view as “the same ones who are alive in the realm of the Spirit as judged by God’s standards” (Jobes, 272).
(f) The letter of Jude uses σάρξ 3×, the first of which is unusual: it speaks of the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah, and other towns nearby as having gone ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, lit., “after different flesh” (Jude 7; NRSV, “unnatural lust”; NIV, “perversion”), referring either to their homosexual activity or to their sexual desire for the divine messengers (Gen 19). The other two instances, along sim. lines, speak of the moral pollution of the body (Jude 8, 23).
4 The wide range in the usage of σάρξ in the NT may be summarized as follows. (a) In some contexts the concept of flesh calls attention to human creatureliness and frailty; human beings are fragile, fallible, and vulnerable (1 Pet 1:24, citing Isa 40:6–8; cf. 2 Cor 10:3; Eph 6:12). This truth constitutes a warning against any false hope and consequent disillusionment brought about by putting undue confidence and trust in human qualities and strength (Jer 17:5; Phil 3:3–4). Even Christians, since they still live “in the flesh” (Gal 2:20 et al.), remain fallible. As “flesh and blood,” human beings have no natural right to the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50); they stand in need of the Holy Spirit (John 3:6; 6:63; cf. Ps 78:38–39 [77:38–39]).
(b) In other contexts σάρξ is used quite simply to denote the physical body and does not offer an evaluation of the individual person as a whole (e.g., Gal 4:13). The NT, as over against ideas that later developed into Gnosticism, asserts the importance of the physical by emphasizing the true humanity of Christ (John 1:14; 1 Tim 3:16; Heb 5:7; 1 Pet 4:1; 1 John 4:2). Similarly the physical nature of flesh has positive significance with regard to the bodily obedience of the Christian (2 Cor 4:10–11). To remain in the flesh is necessary and of value (Phil 1:24; Col 1:24). The fact that we have physical existence as part of the physical world brings home to us our responsibility for our thoughts and actions in terms of visible and tangible consequences. Physical flesh is the raw material that reveals good or bad thoughts and attitudes for what they are.
(c) To assess a truth or a phenomenon κατὰ σάρκα, “according to the flesh,” is to reach a verdict on the basis of purely human, external, or natural considerations. It is an evaluation that leaves spiritual dimensions out of account (John 8:15; 1 Cor 1:26). Paul insists that it is both wrong and misleading to judge either the person of Jesus Christ or even a fellow Christian in purely human terms (2 Cor 5:16), for this viewpoint leaves out of account the fact that a Christian is God’s new creation (5:17). Paul is not contrasting some “gnostic” means of insight over against rational thought, for “mind” and rational argument have a prominent and positive place in his epistles. The point is, rather, that to understand truths relating to God and his dealings we need the Holy Spirit and a frame of reference instructed by Scripture (1 Cor 2:10–16; 15:3).
(d) A quite different use of σάρξ appears in the major theological passages in Paul, such as Rom 8:5–8. Here the mental outlook of the flesh is hostile to God; it is oriented toward the self, pursuing its own ends in self-sufficient independence of God. Paul explicitly speaks of the “fleshly” outlook in connection with the law and circumcision (Gal 6:12–14). Thus Paul’s crucial challenge, “Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?” (3:3), clearly refers to reliance on obedience to the law rather than on God’s grace in Christ (sim. Phil 3:3–7). The very desire to use the law as a means of justification before God makes obedience for its own sake imposs. (see νόμος G3795).
At the same time, however, σάρξ also characterizes people as sinners in their rejection of the law (Gal 5:19–21). The criterion that establishes that the Corinthian Christians are still “fleshly” (1 Cor 3:3–4) is the continued presence of jealousy and strife within their community. The point is not that the flesh weakens the will to do the good, but that it lures us to substitute our own good for God’s. Clearly, σάρξ stands for a polymorphous concept, the actual content of which varies from case to case. Sometimes it may be used simply as a general value judgment of disapproval, just as the term “spiritual,” to which “fleshly” stands in opp., may function as a term of approval, the content of which needs to be defined in a given case (cf. A. C. Thiselton, “The Meaning of Sarx in 1 Cor. 5:5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of Logical and Semantic Factors,” SJT 26 [1973]: 204–28). The nearest that we can go toward finding a “general” meaning for this partic. category is to say that fleshly life is life lived in pursuit of one’s own ends, in independence of God or of the law of God, in contrast to living in accordance with the direction of the Holy Spirit.
Bibliography
TDNT 7:98–151; EDNT 3:229–33; Spicq 3:231–41; Trench 267–74; TDOT 2:317–32; NIDOTTE 1:777–79. E. De Witt Burton, Spirit, Soul and Flesh (1918); W. Schauf, Sarx: Der Begriff “Fleisch” beim Apostel Paulus unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner Erlösungslehre (1924); W. Gutbrod, Die paulinische Anthropologie (1934); R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols. (1952), 1:232–46; C. H. Lindijer, Het begrip sarx bij Paulus (1952); J. A. T. Robinson, The Body (1952), 11–33; J. Jeremias, “Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God,” NTS 2 (1955–56): 151–59; W. D. Davies, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. K. Stendahl (1957), 157–82; H. W. Huppenbauer, “בשׂר ‘Fleisch’ in den Texten von Qumran (Höhle I),” TZ 13 (1957): 298–300; R. E. Murphy, “BŚR in the Qumrân Literature and sarks in the Epistle to the Romans,” Sacra pagina 2 (1959): 60–76; W. Barclay, Flesh and Spirit (1962); W. G. Kümmel, Man in the New Testament (1963); R. Batey, “The μία σάρξ Union of Christ and the Church,” NTS 13 (1966–67): 270–81; A. Sand, Der Begriff “Fleisch” in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen (1967); E. Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist: Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit (1968); R. Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms (1971), 49–66; J. P. Sampley, ‘And the Two Shall Become One Flesh’: A Study of the Traditions in Ephesians 5:21–33 (1971); A. C. Thiselton, “The Meaning of Sarx in 1 Cor. 5:5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of Logical and Semantic Factors,” SJT 26 (1973), 204–28; P. Bonnard, “La chair dans le johannisme, et au-delà,” in id., Anamnesis (1980), 187–93; D. Lys, “L’arrière-plan et les connotations vétérotestamentaires de sarx et de sōma (étude préliminaire),” VT 36 (1986): 163–204; E. A. Nida and J. P. Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament: A Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (1992), 57–59; V. Pasquetto, “Il lessico antropologico del Vangelo e delle lettere di Giovanni (I),” Teresianum 47 (1996): 103–37, esp. 110–15; S. Creve et al., “The Pauline Key Words πνεῦμα and σάρξ and Their Translation,” FN 20 (2007): 15–31.”

Ava Aaronson: Sarah (aka Wild Honey): “Jesus did not come to earth to start a religion. He came to earth to restore a relationship that had been lost in the Garden of Eden.”

Beautiful statement and thanks so much for sharing your interesting story.

That.

dainca: the theological perspective of the translators, who believe, as most Protestants do, that our very human nature was completely wrecked in the Fall. (That was not the view of the earliest Christian theologians, but they are ignored for reasons it would take too long to go into here.)

Not true at all. Original sin or “our wrecked human nature” is discussed by Hermas in ‘The Shepherd’, Theophilus of Antioch in ‘Ad Autolycus 2:25 [A.D. 181], Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem. (I know this through reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all its footnotes – sad isn’t it :-))

Friend,

that’s funny!

Sarah (aka Wild Honey),

Headless Unicorn Guy,
++++++++++++++++++++

yes, that was a touching story. so very honest. thank you for sharing it, HUG.

elastigirl,

You might want to check out Sabine Hossenfelder’s channel on YouTube.
It’s called Science without the Gobbledygook.

Lowlandseer: Not true at all. Original sin or “our wrecked human nature” is discussed by Hermas in ‘The Shepherd’, Theophilus of Antioch in ‘Ad Autolycus 2:25 [A.D. 181], Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem. (I know this through reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all its footnotes – sad isn’t it :-))

Have to agree, at least partially. As a Catholic, I do NOT subscribe to Total Depravity. But Original Sin is overwhelmingly Scriptural. It was attested by the vast majority of Church Fathers, East and West. (No, Augustine didn’t invent it.) And that whole Ancestral Sin vs. Original Sin notion *was* basically invented by Romanides. It’s an innovation.

Moreover, “Christus Victor” is one wonderful way to look at the Atonement, but it’s not the whole picture. On its own, it isn’t adequate to describe such an inexhaustible event. Scripture is saturated with the ideas of sacrifice, satisfaction, and propitiation.

Lowlandseer,

LLS,
I get you, I was raised Catholic (then was an Evangelical for +30 years). The Catholic Catechism has its own point of view, and it might be that the quotes you read were rather selective.

I’m EO and studied a lot before I jumped into the Bosporus, lol. In the Eastern understanding, one’s nature is “that which makes a thing what it is” – as in, God has a divine nature, humans have a human nature, horses have a horse nature, dogs have a dog nature, etc. Our nature, “ousia” in Greek, has not changed – we didn’t all of a sudden become “not human” with the Fall. This is the view of Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, most of whom I have read, in contrast to Augustine, who wasn’t comfortable dealing with Greek, and whose view became accepted in the west. The Eastern Fathers don’t talk about “original sin” – they call it “ancestral sin”, and view it much more as the result of a loss of trust, because of the immaturity of our first parents, and less as outright rebellion.

The result was more like Muff describes: death, and the propensity to decay into nothingness – physically as well as our behavior – as we have turned away from the Source of Life. See Heb 2.5-17. Of course, only God could rescue us – we can’t “put ourselves back”. The way God does this (do read all of Athanasius’ On the Incarnation, which is actually a treatise on why Christ had to die) is by becoming incarnate and entering into death, smashing its power by the Resurrection. Of course, at the same time the Crucifixion declares God’s forgiveness of sin and the now-open door to the Life he gives, to any who want to step through. And the life of Jesus shows us what kind of human beings we are meant to be; he’s human as well as God. If human nature were completely wrecked, there’s no logical (theological) way the Second Person could have united himself with humanity in the Incarnation.

The theology of the Christian East is so much larger, and God is, too. At least that’s what I’ve found.

Best-
D.

dainca:
Lowlandseer,

LLS,
I get you, I was raised Catholic (then was an Evangelical for +30 years).The Catholic Catechism has its own point of view, and it might be that the quotes you read were rather selective.

I’m EO and studied a lot before I jumped into the Bosporus, lol.In the Eastern understanding, one’s nature is “that which makes a thing what it is” – as in, God has a divine nature, humans have a human nature, horses have a horse nature, dogs have a dog nature, etc.Our nature, “ousia” in Greek, has not changed – we didn’t all of a sudden become “not human” with the Fall.This is the view of Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, most of whom I have read, in contrast to Augustine, who wasn’t comfortable dealing with Greek, and whose view became accepted in the west.The Eastern Fathers don’t talk about “original sin” – they call it “ancestral sin”, and view it much more as the result of a loss of trust, because of the immaturity of our first parents, and less as outright rebellion.

The result was more like Muff describes:death, and the propensity to decay into nothingness – physically as well as our behavior – as we have turned away from the Source of Life.See Heb 2.5-17.Of course, only God could rescue us – we can’t “put ourselves back”.The way God does this (do read all of Athanasius’ On the Incarnation, which is actually a treatise on why Christ had to die) is by becoming incarnate and entering into death, smashing its power by the Resurrection.Of course, at the same time the Crucifixion declares God’s forgiveness of sin and the now-open door to the Life he gives, to any who want to step through.And the life of Jesus shows us what kind of human beings we are meant to be; he’s human as well as God.If human nature were completely wrecked, there’s no logical (theological) way the Second Person could have united himself with humanity in the Incarnation.

The theology of the Christian East is so much larger, and God is, too.At least that’s what I’ve found.

Best-
D.

With all due respect, the East is not the whole — the Catholica. For true richness, depth, and breadth, you need both East and West. As the old African-American hymn puts it:

In Christ there is no East or West,
In Him no South or North,
But one great fellowship of love
Throughout the whole wide earth.

I respectfully suggest that you actually read The Catechism of the Catholic Church.. Far from presenting an exclusively Latin/Western POV, it is replete with citations from the Eastern Fathers. Because we believe the Church breathes with two lungs. Not just one.

Edited to eliminate booboo.

Headless Unicorn Guy: And the only SF Christians are allowed to write is Near Future Persecution Dystopias with an End TImes Prophecy tie-in.
https://alanloewen.blogspot.com/2016/09/guest-editorial-why-is-christian.html
Think about that.

Well, that list of rules is positively eyeroll inducing.

Now I’m trying to think… Madeline L’Engle did not hide her Christianity when writing SF. Nor did Katherine Kurtz (though her genre is more admittedly fantasy). Brandon Sanderson, Terry Brooks, and Orson Scott Card are Latter Day Saints, I think, so not exactly the same.

I’m actually going to throw out the controversial statement that much of explicitly Christian fiction is mediocre at best (including children’s books). Maybe because there’s a ready-made market of “I only consume Christian products so I don’t get unintentionally tainted.”

Giant disclaimer – Ava, I haven’t read your book, so present company excluded!

Sarah (aka Wild Honey),

Thank you. As always, you write so thoughtfully.

Sarah (aka Wild Honey): I’m actually going to throw out the controversial statement that much of explicitly Christian fiction is mediocre at best (including children’s books). Maybe because there’s a ready-made market of “I only consume Christian products so I don’t get unintentionally tainted.”

Agree, generally – Christian fiction can be mediocre at best, because, IMHO, these books often don’t tell the truth. Here is what I have to say about novels. Real novels.

A good novel is like good gossip, juicy, indulgent, satisfying – it tells secrets. That’s why we read. We indulge. Delicious. Then jarring. Quietly shaking us to the bone. We can hardly stand it. It sneaks up on us, really. Setting the stage with the quiet serene and noble life in a lovely quaint village. Everyone knows each other. Oh, the trust. But just beneath the surface an inferno rages. God help us. It’s life on this beautiful-to-look-at but daunting to endure, planet. God help us. Let’s not kid ourselves. It’s an up and down ride, this journey, and we need our books as companions. Upending the pretentious with the real. Quietly informing us from the page. Quietly affirming what we see and feel, but do not dare say, every day. Just beneath the surface. Secrets. The truth that is told in a novel.

Ava Aaronson: The truth that is told in a novel.

+++++++++++++++++

Yes. Honest art tells the truth. The parts we can’t tell anyone else, sometimes because it defies words.

As I see it, Christian culture is terrified of such things.

And frowns on art for its own sake (and no other).

I remember some years ago reading the leaflet of a Christian music cd. The singer/songwriter was describing the musical, spiritual, artistic journey behind the music.

Then came the sentence, “But I wanted the church to like it.”

It seemed to me that he had to impose forces onto his art that were entirely unartistic and contrary to the artistic process so that his target audience (market) would listen (buy).

I know this to be true -but it was amazing to read it betrayed on the very packaging.

Muff Potter: Let’s face it, we’ve been taught a special case of human sacrifice.
There’s no way around it.

I agree. When I was Christian, I couldn’t subscribe to the literal body and blood thing. I focused on redemption.

I was told by a pastor that Jesus was sacrificed because we were incapable of following the Law.

God took it out on his son or himself, I guess, if we’re talking Trinity,because we couldn’t do all murderous bits in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and so we can enjoy surf n turf at Red lobster.

So basically, it was self harm in the frustration that those wacky humans just could only do so much in his name before we were too repulsed.

So he came and did nice things and miracles and told us to love our neighbors and not be violent….and then suffered horribly and now we eat flesh and blood to remember him.

I’m sure this misses the point in so many ways but that’s what I got my time in evangelicalism.

Friend,

*group

(Need to work on my worldly spelling ability)

Got a blockquote wrong. Here’s the corrected version:
MOD: Just to clarify. The original comment never made it. GBTC

Sarah (aka Wild Honey):
Well, that list of rules is positively eyeroll inducing.

Before I read that essay, I noticed Four Spiritual Laws of CHRISTIAN SF:
1) NO stories set off-world, lest God miss us in The Rapture.
2) NO stories set more than 20 minutes into the Future, because there is No Future, only The Rapture (any minute now…).
3) NO Aliens unless they’re really DEMONS. “Here are NO ‘aliens’ only Fallen Ones come to Deceive us; no, I am not a conspiracy crackhead.”
4) NO semi-human genetic constructs; for the same reason as (3).

Long ago Christians signed the entire Future over to The Antichrist, and only wait in their CHRISTIAN knockoff bubble away from any Heathen Contamination to get beamed up (any minute now…).

Nor did Katherine Kurtz (though her genre is more admittedly fantasy).

Katherine Kurtz was one of my two fave authors in my college years (the other being Poul Anderson). Her Deryni series (Medieval fantasy) was the first I’d ever read that showed the Church’s role in medieval society. (Though I preferred Kelson’s period to Camber’s.)

I used to cross paths with Katherine Kurtz in the late Seventies – she & I attended a lot of the same events. She had some hilarious stories about SCA types (who knew her only by her SCA handle of “Bevan”) trying to tell her about these Deryni books they had read.

“I only consume Christian products so I don’t get unintentionally tainted.”

That is the EXACT reason.

In the words of Internet Monk circa 210:
Oh sure, you used to like listening to Christina Aguilera, but now you are a Christian, so you listen to BarlowGirl, not because you like their sound or their lyrics, but you would feel guilty listening to and enjoying Christina Aguilera now that you have been saved. You used to love reading science fiction by Orson Scott Card and Ursula K. Le Guin, but now you read Left Behind. You used to go study the works of Van Gogh, but now you look at a picture of a pasty-white Jesus knocking on someone’s door.

So we buy Christian crap

(Here’s the full essay from the arhcives:
https://imonk.blog/2010/07/01/selling-jesus-by-the-pound/

First, Christians are trying to keep their noses squeeky-clean to pass the Rapture and Great White Throne litmus tests, always in fear of losing their salvation/being Left Behind. Like Kirk Cameron barricading himself in his greenromm trailer when he heard there were HEATHENS on the set. A corollary of the Gospel of Personal Salvation and ONLY Personal Salvation.

Climb into your little CHRISTIAN box in the basement and nail the lid shut behind you. Inside there are CHRISTIAN knockoffs of everything in the HEATHEN culture outside – CHRISTIAN bowling leagues, CHRITSIAN coffehouses in the church lobbies, CHRISTIAN workout videos, CHRISTIAN diet books, everything “Just like fill-in-the-blank Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!” All of them third-rate Gospelly knockoffs of the real thing with SCRIPTURE verses embossed.

“Is there any creative endeavor that Christians haven’t killed?”

Ava Aaronson: Agree, generally – Christian fiction can be mediocre at best, because, IMHO, these books often don’t tell the truth.

Famous essay on the subject, by British SF author Simon Morden:
SEX AND DEATH AND CHRISTIAN FICTION
https://bookofmorden.co.uk/essays/sex-death-and-christian-fiction/

And a sequel to the aboveL
https://bookofmorden.co.uk/essays/where-are-we-now/

Elastigirl: And frowns on art for its own sake (and no other).

I’ve seen this over and over again.
In some, but not all Christian circles, there is no enjoying anything for its own sake.
It must always have a tie-in, somewhere, somehow, to promote the doctrine of PSA (penal substitutionary atonement).

Catholic Gate-Crasher: believes that Original Sin makes us less than human

But the superapostles do – and to cap it, in their “gospel” there hasn’t been a remedy (except for their class) – you are predetermined as they say you are!

dainca: the result of a loss of trust, because of the immaturity of our first parents

I was a more backward child in some respects, than most others. Yet the sole pickup I got from my parents, or from secular agnostic teachers, on this was faint indulgence for any hyperbolic usages seemingly coming from religious authority. Traditionally, hyperbole as acceptable element in rhetoric was not meant to be taken extremely. These lessons were parallelled in our secular school “reading books”.

We knew that if we cut corners in our personal conduct we were at that time letting a sort-of metaphorically “blackish” mark put itself on our souls (control rooms to body and spirit) and that this is how we are meant to be made so that we can keep on putting ourselves right at any time. Nothing got dumbed down (in the echelons I mixed in).

extracts from “Manifest Destiny” in wikipedia:

~ O’Sullivan wrote an article in 1839 that, while not using the term “manifest destiny”, did predict a “divine destiny” for the United States based upon values such as equality, rights of conscience, and personal enfranchisement “to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man”.[19] ~

~ it was “our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions”.[24] ~

~ And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.[26] ~

~ O’Sullivan believed that manifest destiny was a moral ideal (a “higher law”) that superseded other considerations.[27] ~

~ On January 3, 1846, Representative Robert Winthrop ridiculed the concept in Congress, saying “I suppose the right of a manifest destiny to spread will not be admitted to exist in any nation except the universal Yankee nation.”[30] Winthrop was the first in a long line of critics who suggested that advocates of manifest destiny were citing “Divine Providence” for justification of actions that were motivated by chauvinism and self-interest. ~

Entirety of:

– Themes and Influences
– Alternative Interpretations

~ In 1811, [ J Q ] Adams wrote to his father:

The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union.[56] ~

~ contradictions of manifest destiny: on the one hand, while identitarian ideas inherent in manifest destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-whites, would present a threat to white racial integrity and thus were not qualified to become Americans, the “mission” component of manifest destiny suggested that Mexicans would be improved (or “regenerated”, as it was then described) by bringing them into American democracy. Identitarianism was used to promote manifest destiny, but, as in the case of Calhoun and the resistance to the “All Mexico” movement, identitarianism was also used to oppose manifest destiny.[71] Conversely, proponents of annexation of “All Mexico” regarded it as an anti-slavery measure.[72] ~

Entirety of:

– Filibusterism
– Homestead Act

QUESTION:

Are there analogies of any and all of this, in present day “reformed” and “new apostolic” irredentism * and in the Holy Spirit deprived moralising megaphoning of the degenerate “pragmatist” Falwell Senior, including hypocritical quibbling to leverage any paradoxes?

( * P Wagner and T Bentley proclaimed world dominionism in 2008 )

Do present and recent religious leaders (across almost all movements) claim some sort of divine mandate over us for their largely half baked shenanigans? Does that strike most people as normal, and if so why?

Once some people start to see, more people can see. Hand wringing is similar to hand washing.

christiane:
As for EOand RC, it seems that the Eastern Orthodox are ‘more comfortable’ with ‘mystery’ in Christianity . . . that, to me, sounds like a great advantage indeed. I’m RC myself but I had a god-mother of Ukrainian descent (Catholic) who also had Eastern Christian leanings . . .what a blessing!

The Ukrainian Catholic Church IS Eastern-Rite, the same liturgy as the Orthodox churches; just under the authority of the Pope in Rome instead of the Patriarch in Constantinople or Moscow.

Which is why the Russian Orthodox Church keeps trying to stamp it out by any means necessary. Their NOT genuflecting to Moscow makes them Heretics and Traitors.