krosero

I did not think you were oblivious to the distinction; I attributed the distinction to you, at the end of my post, and said it was a useful distinction. Nor did I think that you were arguing the former and not the latter; I could see you were working with a distinction. But that distinction, and more importantly your exact words for it, only became clear after the misunderstanding(s) had begun. So indeed it could be, like you say, that sometimes when you used the word "applied" it was taken to mean "understood", or some other such misunderstanding. I don't know exactly how or where wires got crossed, but it was apparent that you two read, wrote, and meant different things by the same terms all along the line. (Though I'm encouraged by your last post, in which you tried to identify not just what Ben, but also what you, might have misunderstood). Best now, IMO, just to be clear moving forward.

Kevin Rosero

gstafleu

No, another entity: you now belong to Christ rather than to the law. Paul sets this up in 1-3 with his marriage metaphor. A woman no longer belongs to her husband--ie that piece of law no longer applies--once the husband is dead. Similarly, a believer no longer belongs to the law now that the idea of the law is dead. The believer now is joined to a new spouse, Christ.

"who was raised from the dead" is a non-restrictive clause regarding "another," i.e. the new spouse Christ. IOW "You now belong to another spouse, Christ, you know, the one who was raised from the dead."

This "made to die to the Law through the body of Christ" is probably the usual: Christ has some earthly attributes ("body"), hence is the new channel to god and thus abolishes the old channel, the law. BTW, doesn't the body of Christ sometimes stand for the church? if so, Paul could just be saying that belonging to the church liberates you from the law.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

I took you to be saying that, in Romans 9.8, the term seed did not mean actual, literal descendants of Abraham. And, in fact, you have said just that several times since then.

You have also said that the term children of promise does not mean actual, literal descendants of Abraham, and I completely agree with that. But, when you say that the term seed does not mean actual, literal descendants of Abraham, I disagree.

It may be the case that I do not always think logically. We are all humans, not machines.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but feel that you have not been entirely clear on your views of Romans 9.8. Compare the following quotes, for example.

Pro:

Con:

Call me illogical if you must, but I truly do not comprehend your position.

Here is another item that I do not comprehend:

You are evidently drawing some meaning from actually touching a real cheek but not having a real apple at hand. But I have no idea what meaning you are drawing from that. Consider these four examples:

1. A man is in the produce department of a grocery store with his girlfriend. He picks up a couple of apples with one hand, touches her cheek with the other, and says: Your cheeks are like these apples. In this case the man has both real feminine cheeks at hand and actual apples.

2. A man is in the produce department of a grocery store, but without his girlfriend. He picks up a couple of apples and announces to anybody close enough to hear: I have a wonderful girlfriend, and her cheeks are like these apples. In this case the man has actual apples, but no feminine cheeks.

3. A man is walking down the beach with his girlfriend. He touches her cheek gently and says: Your cheeks are like apples. In this case the man has feminine cheeks at hand, but no actual apples.

4. A man is walking down the beach, but without his girlfriend. He announces loudly to a passing jogger: I have a wonderful girlfriend, and her cheeks are just like apples. In this case the man has neither feminine cheeks nor actual apples at hand.

(Also consider that in none of the above cases do you and I have real apples or real feminine cheeks at hand; these are just words transmitted on the internet.)

So, again, granted that the simile works the same basic way in all four cases (in each of the four, feminine cheeks are being compared to apples), I am missing your point about not having real apples around.

Ben.

Solo

Ted, you might find it useful to refer to some mainstream linguist when gauging the correctness of Doherty's far-out inventions such as "spiritual flesh". Romans 7:4 speaks of "soma" of Christ through which believers join in the spritual community. To Paul, "flesh" connoted belonging to a corrupt world (although he does use the term sometimes in neutral, descriptive fashion). Unlike "flesh" (sarx) which is by definition subject to death no matter what (through sin - but even if one renounces the world of earthly desires, the flesh is discarded in resurrection), "body" (soma) in Paul's usage refers to an entity capable of "surviving" death through a process of a mystical transformation in Christ. Christ, according to Paul, was sent into the world in the likeness (en homoiomati) of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3) with the express purpose of beaming up the lot of salvageable humanity at some unspecified near future date from a corruptible existence to an incorruptible state of radiant permanence. All Paul had to show as proof of that was his fits of myoclonus, glossolalia, his drooling and incontinence during seizures, and of course - coming back from these states - apparently normal and with more revelations.

You might want to check e.g. with James D.G. Dunn, Paul pp.70-74, for a fairly clear distinction between the two terms (sarx-soma). Without such a distinction, you will end up as confused as Earl.

Jiri

Amaleq13

Jiri,


I wanted to provide an Amazon link to the book but there are at least three books by Dunn with "Paul" in the title. I didn't see any where that was the only word.

EarlDoherty

And you might want to consider whether a writer like Dunn could possibly recognize anything in Paul that would contravene or weaken his own very orthodox (and devotional) outlook.

You might also want to consider actually quoting or summarizing the views of the writer you are appealing to, rather than just pointing to a few pages in a book which you have not even properly identified. As a matter of fact, I suspect it is "The Theology of Paul the Apostle (or via: amazon.co.uk)." The Amazon "Search inside the book" feature allowed access to references to "sarx", including on pages 70-74, where what Dunn says casts no light that I can see, for or against, on my analysis of Paul's usage of sarx vs. soma. It's simply traditional orthodox analysis. Perhaps since you have apparently read this book and understand that its views on the words in question discredit me, you could outline in some fashion how this is so (and give us a proper reference at the same time). Then we could actually address your claim.

And how does this differ from what I said (or did you not actually read my post on sarx vs. soma)? "Flesh" used of Christ places him in the realm of flesh, which includes the entire area below the moon, where spiritual beings and activities go on. "Body" when used of Christ by Paul is attached to Christ when he is in his purely spiritual heavenly realm, and (sometimes) to whom/which believers can be joined.

So why didn't Paul use "body" to refer to Christ on earth, or in any connection to do with sublunar experiences, earth or firmament? I detailed and explained one exception, the "body and blood" of his eucharistic discussion in 1 Corinthians. Ted also pointed out another possible exception, in Romans 7:4, where "body" seems to be used in the sacrificial (sublunar world) context. But thanks, you nicely countered that by interpreting it as being in relation to the spiritual community, represented by Christ's mystical (heavenly) "body".

It's so nice when even my dissenters support my analysis.

Earl Doherty

Toto

Dunn is also the author of A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology) (or via: amazon.co.uk)He is also the author of Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1) (or via: amazon.co.uk), which can be searched on Amazon, where on pp 870-1 he comments on his earlier discussion in Paul.

From the little that I have skimmed, Dunn seems to find sarx an exercise in allusion, metaphor, symbols, etc, with no a lot of support for a "literal" interpretation.

EarlDoherty

Apparently Jiri has no desire to discredit my analysis of sarx/soma on the basis of his obscure allusion to Dunn, so I will stop holding my breath.

Instead, I will offer another observation on the matter of kata sarka. This is from a draft of material on the Sarx question for my second edition of The Jesus Puzzle. It represents an idea that just came to me as I was writing yesterday...

Flesh and Spirit

We have looked at the contrast between “flesh” and “body” in Pauline usage and have found that it makes sense in the context of mythicism. The same result obtains when we consider Paul’s contrast between “flesh” and “spirit.” As noted earlier, when applied to humans, flesh is bad, spirit is good. “Walking in flesh” leads to evil and destruction, “walking in spirit” leads to purity and salvation:

Romans 8:6 – “The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the spirit is life and peace.” (See also Rom. 8:4,5,9; Gal. 3:3, plus many that refer only to one or the other.)

But what of the dichotomy between flesh and spirit in application to Christ? It is obvious that there is no use of “flesh” in a derogatory sense to describe Christ himself. And yet—shouldn’t that very point have arisen and needed clarification? If Paul, who obsessively and monotonously pronounces human flesh as corrupt, godless and defiling, derides 'walking in the way of flesh' as doom-laden, one would think that this would raise questions in both his mind and those of his readers: Didn't Jesus have human flesh? Don't we need to make some kind of exception here? Was Jesus flesh corrupt, too, or at least at risk? Did Jesus ever walk in the ways of flesh, or was he tempted to?

These questions would have been very legitimate ones Paul could not have avoided, and would have demanded an answer. If Christ had literally taken on flesh, if he was born part of human nature, it would have to be explained that he had avoided the evil aspect of it, that his flesh was different in that respect, or at least was guided differently by him. It cannot simply be assumed that everyone knew and understood this. Even if they had, it would have been an interesting, indeed compelling subject that could have illuminated the whole question, a subject that would surely have come up for comment some of the time: the nature of Jesus’ human flesh and how he lived/walked in it in relation to everything that Paul and others have to say about human flesh in general and its properties. It never does.

This is somewhat distinct from, but related to, the idea of whether Christ was “without sin.” But even in those references, the questions are obvious and the silence perplexing. Romans 6:10 – The death he died, he died to sin once for all. “Does that mean Jesus sinned before he died, Paul?” Surely an explanation of Jesus’ state in regard to sin during his life would have been in order. Romans 8:3 – God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. If this meant an actual taking on of a human body on earth, the question could well have been asked, “How did Jesus keep from sinning if he was just like us, Paul?” 2 Corinthians 5:21 – God made him who had no sin to be sin for us. “How could Jesus be free of sin, yet constitute sin, Paul?” No doubt Paul could have given a characteristic mystical answer in regard to a metaphysical Christ, but could any answer have resolved the perplexity in the context of a human Jesus of Nazareth?

1 John 3:5 – He was revealed that he might take away our sins, and in him is no sin. No explanation. In any case, there is no reference to an historical human figure of flesh, since the sinlessness is current: the verb is in the present tense. And Christ was only “revealed” in the present time; there is no sign of him living a life on earth anywhere in this epistle. (Although 4:1-4 suggests that some were starting to think that he had, while others denied it.)

1 Peter 2:22 – (He) who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth. How does the writer know this? The answer could have been Paul’s answer: “It is found in scripture!” For 1 Peter is simply quoting verses from Isaiah 53. There was never any need to explain the “flesh” of Christ in terms of what it did or did not have in common with human flesh on earth because there was no such commonality between them. Christ’s flesh and body, sinless or otherwise, existed in the spiritual world of scripture and its revelations. Could a spiritual figure be regarded as sinless? In what way, if he possessed nothing that could lead him into sin, and nowhere to commit it? (Although one supposes that the sin of pride, for example, could be committed by a spiritual being; indeed, many were the fallen angels who had been guilty of it.) 1 Peter 1:15 says: “The One who called you is holy; like him, be holy in all your conduct, just as the one who called you is holy, for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy’.” The quote is, once again, from scripture (Lev. 19:2), but it refers to God. Holiness certainly involves sinlessness, and the Son of God was no doubt seen as (and required to be) holy and sinless in the same way. Neither feature required him, or God, to be in a human body, and thus it did not create any perplexity about understanding such a body in comparison with other human bodies.

Which leads us to the final question I posed earlier that could theoretically have been asked of Paul in regard to Jesus’ flesh—if one presumed that it was human. Did Jesus walk in the ways of flesh, or of spirit? Naturally, everyone could, in this case, be assumed to know the answer. But would that answer not have made an ideal example to be followed? Paul is constantly haranguing his readers not to walk in the way of the flesh (kata sarka), but in the way of the spirit (kata pneuma)—even though they inhabit human bodies. Surely the historical Jesus in his human body would have been the perfect illustration. Walk as he walked. He lived in the flesh but conducted himself according to the spirit. Yet just as Paul failed in 1 Corinthians 15:44-49 to provide the example of Jesus’ passage from a physical to a spiritual body to illustrate how believers shall undergo their own passage from death to resurrection, so Paul failed, throughout his letters, to offer Jesus of Nazareth as the prime example of how to be kata sarka but live kata pneuma.

Paul is silent, but 1 Peter goes a step further. The writer urges his readers to “be holy,” and he offers an example. Unfortunately, as we have just seen, it is God himself. It apparently did not occur to him to provide Jesus of Nazareth as an example of one who was holy, a human example for human behavior. Just as he knows God only from scripture, he knows Jesus only in the same way. Neither one of them offers an example of how to live sinless in the context of a human body.

[Yet another gaping hole in the dike.]

Earl Doherty

TedM

Jiri will like me for this--what if Paul thought Jesus was not sinless prior to his crucifixion? That would do away with the need you see for him to explain how Jesus, in sinful flesh, could be sinless. You would then likely ask: How could God's Son sin? The answer would have to be: His sinful flesh made him do it.

If he was sinless, it seems to me that the answer to how that can be is obvious, if simplistic, and is found in the first part of the verse you quote:
God sent his own Son. Can God's Son sin? Does Paul really need to explain HOW God's Son in sinful flesh can avoid sinning? I'm not sure that should have been expected since the answer seems fairly obvious.


Perhaps he was referring to a pre-incarnated Jesus being sinless, and then Jesus becoming a sinner, but still somehow being worthy of sacrificing for others (since he was God's Son). Or perhaps he was referring to an incarnated Jesus being sinless but whose death sacrifice made him "be" (become) sin, because that's what Paschal lamb sacrifice represents (sacrifice means "to take the place of"). I prefer the second interpretation.

So: How could he be sinless in sinful flesh? He was God's Son. How could he "be" sin if he is sinless? By applying the same principle applied to a Paschal lamb sacrifice: The sacrifice takes the place of sin. Paul didn't explicitly answer either question, but I don't think I would expect him to since reasonable inferences from his writings can be made.



It seems the author of Hebrews had no qualms with saying Jesus had the same kind of flesh yet was sinless:

2:14 4:15
Would not the reference to Jesus as being in the likeness of sinful flesh by itself--regardless of where that flesh resided--have raised the same questions?: How could a holy and sinless being take on flesh that is like ours? A recent location on earth would provide more fodder for specific examples than a location in another sphere, but the main apparant contradiction exists regardless of Jesus' location. Paul didn't answer it. Wouldn't you have expected an answer regardless of Jesus' location?


Paul does refer to the "meekness and gentleness of Christ" in 1 Cor 10:1, which sounds more based on knowledge of his earthly manner than derived from scripture, we can't tell for sure...You are right: Paul doesn't provide specific examples beyond the crucifixion itself, as a way in which Christians are to be obedient as Christ was.

The author of 1 John appeared to address this issue, though again not with specifics:

1 John 2:6Is this referring to God or Jesus? If Jesus, then what "walking" is this referring to if all Jesus did was get crucified in another sphere? Doesn't "walking" imply "living in accordance with God's ways"?

There are many omissions in Paul's and other early Epistles....

IF the whole point in taking on such sinful flesh was to simply fulfill scriptural references to the prophecied Jewish Messiah, why doesn't Paul just say so? Why doesn't he say "We know everything about who Jesus was and what his life and death were like by revelation through the scriptures", or "All that is to be known of our Savior is found in the holy writings of the prophets", etc..?

If Paul bought into an unusual conception of the Messiah as not someone people should still be looking for to appear on earth but as having already appeared in some place other than on earth in the past, why doesn't he ever explicitly address EITHER of those or even the fact that they were unconventional concepts among his own people? Why doesn't he ever say of Jesus' sacrifice that it didn't happen on this earth, but in the heavenly copy of this earth? And if Paul really didn't know much about Jesus' pre-crucifixion "life" because it was all derived from scripture, why doesn't Paul ever allude to the limited amount of knowledge anyone was able to have about it?

Aren't these kinds of omissions by Paul glaring to you too? Aren't they as glaring as the lack of specifics about things Jesus may have said or done?

Or might it be because he cared much more about the meaning of Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection than his pre-crucifixion existence or specific events and people associated with his crucifixion? Might his own words "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" be closer to the truth than what any of us would prefer?



Paul does refer at least once to "flesh" in a neutral manner, when he uses it to mean a biological relationship. He does this in Romans 9:3: I find it interesting that he applied the exact same phrase just 2 verses later when referencing the relationship of Christ to the Israelites. Yet Paul says nothing to clarify that the term "according to the flesh" is to be applied differently. Doesn't the fact that he uses the exact same term for Christ, yet provides not even a hint that the relationship for Christ is anything other than also a biological relationship, seem like a very large omission for Paul if what he really had in mind was Christ somehow coming from the Israelites according to flesh but in some other sphere of existence?

ted

the_cave

You did something very interesting, Mr. Doherty--several posts back, you seemingly offered the possibility that there was a pre-Pauline gospel of an earthly Christ:

Here you seem to take the position that a) there were apostles who preached a "fleshly" (i.e. earthly) Christ (that may have also been "spiritual" in some sense), b) they predated Paul, and c) Paul was aware of their message. I'm not trying to make a point, nor do I think this is in any way incompatible with your reading of Paul--I just thought it was interesting. At any rate I again thank you for your insightful (though perhaps still incomplete) analysis.