# "Sarksa" in Romans (Paul in general)



## Theological Books (Oct 30, 2004)

To set the context of this question, I am writing a systematic paper on Paul's use of "law of faith," specifically in regard to a tri-covenantal schema (covenant of works, redemption, and grace) when opposing the covenant of works (as represented in the repubilcation in the Mosaic Covenant) from the covenant of grace (antithetically). So, "the law of works" is that we see in the C.O.W. as represented in the Mosaic, and "the law of faith" as seen in the C.O.G. The main text I am using is Romans 3:19-31 (I know, it's a HUGE periocope), while supplimenting Pauline phrases such as "obedience of faith" (Rom 1:5; 16:26). That's the jist of my paper, any way. I'll be arguing against the Federal Vision and NPP view of "boundary markers" and "faith being faithfulness to the law of God," essentially.

Anyway, I've always noted the Pauline opposition of "kata sarksa" and "kata peneuma" in his paradigmatic theology of works and grace. I began thinking more about "sarksa" in Paul, specifically Romans, in Romans 3:20. Why does Paul uses "sarksa" in this text? Why not person? The use of the Psalm is not much help in the LXX, since the Hebrew does not stipulate "felsh" or "body," but "living," while the LXX, which Paul seems to reference, uses "sarksa." But how is he using this word in this text?

It seems as if Paul uses "sarksa" as an allusion to Jewshness, or those who put themselves under the law. See his previous and immediately following uses: Rom 1:3; 2:28; 4:1. It is clear he uses "sarksa" like this often (see Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians).

So, Paul insists of the Judaizers that the works of the law will justify no flesh, or person under the epoch of the Mosaic Covenant. Rather, the Law of God serves to condemn the people under it. So, "kata sarksa" is clearly a reference to being Jewish (Rom 1:3; 9:3, 5). This is a paradigmatic comparison to those who--under the New Covenant, not under the Law, but Grace (Rom 6:14)--live by faith, rather than in bondage to works.

I think this is the proper use of Romans 3:20 and "sarksa" in this context.

Now, if that is the case, what of "sarksa" in Romans 7 and 8? Firstly, I do assume Romans 7:1--in reference to "the law"--is a reference to Jews and the Mosaic Covenant. Why, if Paul uses "kata sarksa" to denote Jews (Rom 1:3; 4:1), would it be different in 7 and 8? Romans 7:5--is "sarksa" referring to being a Jew under the Law of Moses? See "according to the flesh" in Rom 8:4, 5, 12, and 13. The surrounding "kata sarksa" all appeal to Jewishness. Does it do so as well in 8, referencing the "sarksa" of 7 as the Jew under the Mosaic Law?

This may sound discombobulated, so forgive me. However, I am thinking the use of "sarksa" in Romans is exclusively a reference to Jewishness, or being of the flesh is a reference to being under the Mosaic Law. So, being "fleshly" or "in the flesh" or "according to the flesh" is to be under the condemnation of the Law, specifically the Mosaic Law, which represents the universal sinfulness of all mankind as presented by Paul in Romans 3:19, 20, 25.

Well... comments? Questions? Thoughts? Corrections?

The ONLY slight exception to the use of "sarksa" in Romans--or the seemingly possible use of "sarksa" in Romans other than this--is Romans 13:4, but even that could be an allusion to living under the regulations of the law for self-righteousness. UGH.


----------



## andreas (Nov 1, 2004)

***kata sarksa" is clearly a reference to being Jewish***

Greek NT - Textus Rec.) Romans 3:20 dioti ex ergwn nomou ou dikaiwqhsetai pasa sarx enwpion autou dia gar nomou epignwsiV amartiaV 

sarx--the body as opposed to the spirit,the human nature,the flesh.

It is a reference to the flesh,rather than the spirit.
"The flesh lusts against the spirit,and the spirit against the flesh".Gal 5:17.
Any flesh whether a Jew or Gentile.
andreas.


----------



## Theological Books (Nov 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ***kata sarksa" is clearly a reference to being Jewish***
> 
> Greek NT - Textus Rec.) Romans 3:20 dioti ex ergwn nomou ou dikaiwqhsetai pasa sarx enwpion autou dia gar nomou epignwsiV amartiaV nature,the flesh.
> ...



Is this in response to what I stated: "So, Paul insists of the Judaizers that the works of the law will justify no flesh, or person under the epoch of the Mosaic Covenant. Rather, the Law of God serves to condemn the people under it. So, "kata sarksa" is clearly a reference to being Jewish (Rom 1:3; 9:3, 5). This is a paradigmatic comparison to those who--under the New Covenant, not under the Law, but Grace (Rom 6:14)--live by faith, rather than in bondage to works."

Because, clearly, "according to the flesh" in Romans 1:3 and 9:3 is referring to being Jewish contextually.


----------



## andreas (Nov 3, 2004)

But you are always under the law,the only difference is that Christ fulfilled the law for us.Christ did not come to abolish it but to fulfill it,so in Christ we fulfill the law.Yes we are saved by faith,but the law is still valid,and we fulfill the works in Christ."the works were finished from the foundation of the world"Heb. 4:3.
andreas.


----------



## Theological Books (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> But you are always under the law,the only difference is that Christ fulfilled the law for us.Christ did not come to abolish it but to fulfill it,so in Christ we fulfill the law.Yes we are saved by faith,but the law is still valid,and we fulfill the works in Christ."the works were finished from the foundation of the world"Heb. 4:3.
> andreas.



We are always under what law? The Mosaic Law? The Moral Law? The NC ceremonial laws? What law are we under? Christ fulfilled what law? The Mosaic Law? How is it we fulfill the Mosaic Law, one we were never under or had to obey? What do you mean "we fulfill the works in Christ"? You mean that, in Christ, by virtue of imputation, we are reckoned as having fulfilled it?


----------



## andreas (Nov 3, 2004)

*****We are always under what law? The Mosaic Law? The Moral Law? The NC ceremonial laws?****

The law of God.There is one God,one law.
andreas.


----------



## Ianterrell (Nov 11, 2004)

Andreas not when were speaking about literary rhetoric in the bible at the very least. Law has a variety of uses, a narrow interpretation is sure to result in some awkward ends.


----------

