gstafleu

Usually I'm an MJ kind of person. But in perusing the kata sarka's of this world I found something that looks rather HJ. So I thought I would share:

This may actually be one of the strongest passages for an HJ, way better than the seed of David and from woman born. In 3 Paul uses "according to the flesh" in something that looks almost "natural:" the Israelites who are his countrymen according to the flesh, i.e. by descent. Then in 5 he seems to say that Christ came from the Israelites. For those who know Greek much better than I do, it says "εξ ων ο χριστος το κατα σαρκα." Am I right in thinking that κατα σαρκα modifies ο χριστος? If so, we have a kata sarka Christ who came from the Israelites, not, as the NKJV suggests, a Christ who came from the Israelites in a kata sarka fashion. That the kata sarka Christ came from the Israelites can of course be seen in an HJ fashion, but it can, I think, also mean that the idea (of a Christ who was more fleshly than his daddy) sprang up in their midst.

Gerard Stafleu

Spanky

This really reads (in English I might add):
..of whom are the fathers and from whom Christ came, according to the flesh, who is over all...
and not:
...of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

Paul is saying that Jesus came from the Jews, the Israelites, to whom their God promised everything, the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.
According to the flesh sounds just like it reads. He was born just like you and me, according to the flesh. Flesh=humankind. Pretty straightforward stuff. However, this is not a smoking gun for our super duper human god boy Jesus.

PhilosopherJay

Hi gstafleu,

Thanks for pointing out this interesting passage.

Just reading the passage off-hand in a few translations, it does seem that the first use of kata Sarka ("my brothers, according to the flesh") is indicative of a physical relationship by flesh or "by blood" as we would commonly say today. The second use appears similar. The main thing is that there is some kind of flesh/blood physical relationship between the fathers οι πατερεσ of the Jews and ο χριστοσ. the Christ (anointed one) who rules over all.

When we remember that the writer regards the Christ (the Anointed One) as the second Adam (a neo-Philonic position), the meaning seems clear. It is not the Anointed one who is descended from the fathers of the Jews (Abraham, Moses, David etc.), but the fathers of the Jews who are descended from the Anointed one. In other words, the fathers of the Jews are the physical descendants of the Christ. The fathers physically came out of the Christ (ων οι πατερεσ και εξ ων ο χριστοσ το κατα σαρκα).

From this we can go back to the passage in Romans 1:3 and see that the original reading was that from the Anointed one (came) out the seed of David (the Jews) by the flesh (physically -- not spiritually).

With this translation, it is clear that Paul is not talking about any recent Christ, but is talking about a physical one from the time of the creation.

I have forgotten, does Paul say the first Adam is the spirtual one or the second? This passage should clarify that one.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Chili

Except that there is no such thing as humankind. Mankind = flesh but sinless flesh. Sin pertains to the human condition which is not of the flesh.

EarlDoherty

Gerard,

I think you will find that I address and deal adequately with this Romans passage in the posting I just added to the "Revisiting Kata Sarka" thread.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

Rom 9:1-8 (NKJV)

1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,
2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart.
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my [fn1] countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."
8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
I'm not sure how you can get Christ springing up as an "idea", nor even really what that means. Unless I miss my guess, God has blessed the Israelites, by bringing out Christ "according to the flesh". Wouldn't "idea" be more "according to the spirit"? Or am I misunderstanding you here?

Earl writes this about these passages (in the 'Revisiting Kata Sarka' thread here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=217414&page=3)

"Romans 9:3 – on behalf of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh kata sarka

A relationship between a human and a human group. There is nothing derogatory in this particular usage. As often remarked, why did Paul add “according to the flesh,” since “kinsmen” by itself would have served well enough, or even just the previous “brothers”? Because he was also used to referring elsewhere to other human beings as joined to him in another way, through a spiritual relationship, and he employed this language to differentiate.

Romans 9:5 – and from whom [the people of Israel] is the Christ kata sarka

If Christ can be seen as having a mystical relationship with David, he can be seen as having a mystical relationship with Israel as a whole. If he can, mystically, be seen as of the seed of David, he can be seen as the seed of Israel, although the text itself is not this specific in its description. As I said, taken in context, Christ is simply another item which is said to belong to the people of Israel. (In the case of many passages in Paul, not just on this topic, it is often impossible for even the most accomplished exegete to provide a fully, or even partially, coherent explanation of what he means, so again, don’t expect me to do the impossible either.)

Romans 9:8 – Not the children of the flesh (tēs sarkos) are children of God, but (those) of the promise are (Abraham’s) seed.

The children of the promise obviously have a relationship/‘lineage’ with the spiritual world, since those with a relationship/‘lineage’ to the physical world are not children of God. And clearly “seed” here is not literal lineage, since the two halves of the sentence would contradict each other."

For Rom 9:3, Earl notes Paul adding "kata saka", and asks (my emphasis): "why did Paul add “according to the flesh,” since “kinsmen” by itself would have served well enough, or even just the previous “brothers”? Because he was also used to referring elsewhere to other human beings as joined to him in another way, through a spiritual relationship, and he employed this language to differentiate"

In Rom 9:5, Paul also adds "kata saka": "and from whom [the people of Israel] is the Christ kata sarka". I have to ask: why did Paul add "kata saka", since "Christ" by itself would have served well enough?

Toto

A digression has been split off here. Please stick to the subject matter.

Minimalist

?

Doesn't every used car salesman start off with "Trust me." At least they have a car to sell.

yalla

I appeal to an authority.
F.F. Bruce 'The Epistle of Paul to the Romans" paraphrasing pp 42-51
-'Flesh' is used in the ordinary sense of bodily flesh in R.2.28
-'Flesh' is used of natural human descent or relationship in R.3.20
-'Flesh' is used in the sense of mankind R.1.3
-'Flesh' is used variously in the sense of human nature in:
1. weak human nature R.6.19
2. the human nature of JC R.8.3
3. the 'old' nature in the believer R. 7.18
4. unregenerate human nature R. 7.8
-believers are no longer 'in the flesh', but 'in the spirit' R. 8.4
-the flesh is subject to the principle of 'sin and death' R. 7.23

He then repeats this process for the word/concept 'spirit'.

My point?
According to FF this word/phrase relating to 'flesh', and its opposite 'spirit', is used in a variety of ways by Paul just in Romans alone.
Probably best not to isolate one and ignore the context of the others.

Because it obviously can mean lots of things.
cheers
yalla

GakuseiDon

Sure, no doubt it can mean a range of things. The question is what it means in this particular situation, whether the reading is likely, and what support that reading has in its usages elsewhere. That it has a range of meanings doesn't mean that it can have ANY meaning. Think of how inerrantists use a similar tactic when trying to reconcile conflicting passages.

If one meaning fits the context and is well represented, then that should be preferred over one that is not well represented. The problem here is that Earl has already decided what the context is, so the meaning is coloured from that. No doubt historicists do the same thing -- but the difference here IMHO, is that there are examples elsewhere that support the historicist reading; i.e. it is the more obvious reading. No need to appeal to non-earthly fleshly beings being seeds of earthly people, etc. (Not that this necessarily dismisses mythicism per se, just Earl's brand of mythicism).