[B-Greek] 1Cor. 15:50 SARX KAI hAIMA, 1 Jn 4:2 SARKI
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Mar 14 00:59:59 EST 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
To: "B-Greek Lists" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 13. marts 2010 20:08
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1Cor. 15:50 SARX KAI hAIMA, 1 Jn 4:2 SARKI
>
> On Mar 13, 2010, at 7:11 AM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>
>> On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:33 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>>
>>> Neither expression in and of themselves indicate anything about lack of
>>> permanence or mortality.
>>
>> A couple of observations,
>>
>> In regard to SARX, lack of permanence is proverbial in both the OT and the
>> NT.
>>
>> 1Pet. 1:24 διότι πᾶσα σὰρξ ὡς χόρτος καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῆς ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου·
>> ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος καὶ τὸ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσεν·
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1Cor. 15:50 Τοῦτο δέ φημι, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα βασιλείαν θεοῦ
>>> κληρονομῆσαι οὐ δύναται οὐδὲ ἡ φθορὰ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν κληρονομεῖ.
>>>
>>> 1Cor. 15:50 TOUTO DE FHMI, ADELFOI, hOTI SARX KAI hAIMA BASILEIAN QEOU
>>> KLHRONOMHSAI OU DUNATAI OUDE hH FQORA THN AFQARSIAN KLHRONOMEI.
>>
>> I would agree with Yancy,
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Yancy Smith wrote:
>>
>>> SARX, PISTIS, CARIS, PNEUMA are such loaded terms in Paul. Paul uses these
>>> and other terms in a highly contextual key terms in an ad hoc manner in his
>>> pastoral rhetoric. I have no doubt that Paul's use of the terms shares
>>> semantic features with John's use in 1 John 4:2, but I would not say the
>>> lexical meaning of the term is any different in these contexts. Paul
>>> qualifies what he means in 15:50 as ἡ φθορὰ. Why couldn't John mean Χριστὸν
>>> ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα = EN SARKI TWi FQORWi?
>>
>
>
> In regard to SARX and SARX KAI hAIMA having a semantic component of transience
> and mortality we need look no further than BDAG p915 3a where 1Pet 1:24 (Isa.
> 40:6), 1Cor 15:50 are cited. Note also the referenecs to mortality and death
> in Heb. 2:14.
>
> Heb. 2:13 καὶ πάλιν· ἐγὼ ἔσομαι πεποιθὼς ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ, καὶ πάλιν· ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ
> παιδία ἅ μοι ἔδωκεν ὁ θεός. 14 Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ
> σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου
> καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν τὸν διάβολον, 15 καὶ
> ἀπαλλάξῃ τούτους, ὅσοι φόβῳ θανάτου διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν δουλείας.
>
> Heb. 2:13 KAI PALIN· EGW ESOMAI PEPOIQWS EP᾿ AUTWi, KAI PALIN· IDOU EGW KAI TA
> PAIDIA hA MOI EDWKEN hO QEOS. 14 EPEI OUN TA PAIDIA KEKOINWNHKEN hAIMATOS KAI
> SARKOS, KAI AUTOS PARAPLHSIWS METESCEN TWN AUTWN, hINA DIA TOU QANATOU
> KATARGHSHi TON TO KRATOS ECONTA TOU QANATOU, TOUT᾿ ESTIN TON DIABOLON, 15 KAI
> APALLAXHi TOUTOUS, hOSOI FOBWi QANATOU DIA PANTOS TOU ZHN ENOCOI HSAN
> DOULEIAS.
>
> When we talk about the meaning of a word, the meaning of meaning is itself a
> problem (cf. K.Vanhoozer, R.DeBlois). I am suggesting that the OT use of
> kal-hbasar Isa. 40:6 is the functional equivalent of SARX KAI hAIMA in 1Cor.
> 15:50 and the cognitive framework (R.DeBlois) for these expressions contains a
> significant, non cancelable component of mortality and transience.
>
> Elizabeth Kline
When I made that remark I was thinking of Adam and Eve before the fall and I
thought that their bodies could still be described as being "flesh and blood",
even though Adam talks of "flesh and bones". I am not sure about the mortality
before the fall, since they had access to the tree of life and would not die. I
remember a film about a family who found a source of water that made them
immortal in the sense that they could not die. But they were still people of
"flesh and blood".
However, if we restrict ourselves to the situation of human beings after the
fall, then I am happy to accept the mortality aspect.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list