Interchangeable words, or confused meanings?

[Van]

The Greek noun (transliterated) Sarx (G4561) literally refers to flesh, but is also used to refer to the depraved appetites of the flesh, otherwise called sin.

An adjective form of the word is "sarkikos" (G4559) and refers to being under control of our depraved appetites, and is applied to both lost people and saved people, with their minds set on fleshly desires.

But another adjective form of the word is sarkinos (G4560) which is used to refer to nonspiritual people of flesh, lost and not indwelt.

Part of the confusion arises from the TR having G4559 at Romans 7:14 and 1 Corinthians 3:1, but the CT has G4560 at these locations. Thus we can understand every usage of G4560 (Romans 7:14, 1 Corinthians 3:1, 2 Corinthians 3:3 and Hebrews 7:16) to refer to unsaved, people in the natural non-indwelt state.

Romans 7:14
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, under sin.

1 Corinthians 3:1
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to people of flesh, as to infants in Christ.

2 Corinthians 3:3
being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, representing our core attributes.

Hebrews 7:16
who has become such not on the basis of flesh requirement law but according to the power of an indestructible life.

 

[Van]

"An adjective form of the word is "sarkikos" (G4559) and refers to being under control of our depraved appetites, and is applied to both lost people and saved people, with their minds set on fleshly desires."

More to the point, use of this word indicates those people are under the influence of physical, material needs or appetites (depraved or not). Thus as long as we are in our mortal body, we can set our minds on physical needs or appetites, or we can set our minds on spiritual things, spiritual milk if unsaved, spiritual milk and an increasing amount of spiritual solid food if we are maturing as born anew believers.

Lets look at some of the ways this word (G4559) is used:


Romans 15:27
For they were pleased, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to do them a service also in material things.

Here the saints in Macedonia and Achaia had given Paul money for the saints in Jerusalem, because those In Macedonia and Achaia had received spiritual things, blessings facilitated by who had helped send Paul. Thus, those blessed through Paul felt indebted (or obligated to reciprocate) by providing for the physical needs of those in Jerusalem. 1 Corinthians 9:11 uses G4559 in exactly this way.

1 Corinthians 3:3
for you are still fleshly For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like ordinary people?

Here G4559 is applied to new born Christians who had not yet matured such that they could grasp spiritual solid food. But they were saved, not lost people of flesh. These new born Christians were still strongly influenced by their physical depraved appetites, behaving with "jealousy and strife." 2 Corinthians 10:4 uses G4559 in exactly this way.

In 2 Corinthians 1:12 uses G4559 to describe wisdom arising from physical life, not from spiritual life. In 1 Peter 2:11 G4559 is used to describe the physical depraved appetites, believers are to abstain from.

 

[Van]

Romans 7:14
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, under sin.

Let's consider the spiritual state of the author at the time of this writing? Is Paul referring to when he was saved, or back to when he was unsaved. The use of sarkinos (G4560) indicates he was not saved at the referenced time. So Paul, again before he was saved, was under the control of sin, i.e. a slave to sin, and unable to do anything to break free from his sinful state in Adam.

But even then, a lost, person of flesh, unregenerate, Paul was aware of spiritual things, wanting to obey God's law, but unable because he was a slave to sin. See Romans 7:25.

God bless

 

[Charlie24]

Romans 7:14
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, under sin.

Let's consider the spiritual state of the author at the time of this writing? Is Paul referring to when he was saved, or back to when he was unsaved. The use of sarkinos (G4560) indicates he was not saved at the referenced time. So Paul, again before he was saved, was under the control of sin, i.e. a slave to sin, and unable to do anything to break free from his sinful state in Adam.

But even then, a lost, person of flesh, unregenerate, Paul was aware of spiritual things, wanting to obey God's law, but unable because he was a slave to sin. See Romans 7:25.

God bless

The way I read it, Van, "but I am carnal, sold under sin" (KJV) Paul was referring to the fall of man.

Even being born-again none of us can keep the Law perfectly, we are "sold under sin" by Adam.

Paul was saved and was speaking of early in his Christian life when he was trying to keep the Law, and found that he couldn't do it.

He proceeds to explain this in the following verses. What he wanted to do (please Christ) he found that he failed. But what he didn't want to do (sin) he found himself doing.

I see it as the sin nature ruling when man tries to live his life by his own ability, rather than dependence on the Holy Spirit.

We make our biggest mistakes in this Christian life when we act on our own (which represents the doing of the Law/the flesh at work) rather than faith and dependence in the Holy Spirit (the opposite of the Law/flesh).

 

[Van]

The way I read it, Van, "but I am carnal, sold under sin" (KJV) Paul was referring to the fall of man.
SNIP

Paul was saved and was speaking of early in his Christian life when he was trying to keep the Law, and found that he couldn't do it.

He proceeds to explain this in the following verses. What he wanted to do (please Christ) he found that he failed. But what he didn't want to do (sin) he found himself doing.

SNIP

We disagree. First you treat G4560 as in interchangeable with G4559. The OP provided support for the view they were NOT used interchangeably.
Using your order of wording, Romans 7:14 can be read as " But I am unregenerate, sold under sin...."

Next, of course we do not live perfectly once saved, we do sinful acts. But as a saved person, we have been set free, no longer "sold under sin."
That is why we thank Christ, Romans 7:25 and following (Romans 8).

 

[Charlie24]

We disagree. First you treat G4560 as in interchangeable with G4559. The OP provided support for the view they were NOT used interchangeably.
Using your order of wording, Romans 7:14 can be read as " But I am unregenerate, sold under sin...."

Next, of course we do not live perfectly once saved, we do sinful acts. But as a saved person, we have been set free, no longer "sold under sin."
That is why we thank Christ, Romans 7:25 and following (Romans 8).

On a positive note, we agree that salvation doesn't bring about sinless perfection.

Yes we disagree in general, but we always do, Van. I gave you my thoughts on the OP, and here we are.

Christ released us from the bondage of sin, but we see that sin is still present, not as a bondage, it's in the form of the nature we inherited from Adam's fall. That's what Paul is discussing in Rom. 6-8.

We who are born-again are not bound to sin anymore, but as Paul said, "When I would do good, evil is present with me (7:21). This is the sin nature that is still with us. When we rely on self, our own ability the sin nature comes to life.

Rom. 7:9
"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

Paul was saved without the Law, he was alive in Christ without any part of the Law. he was saved by grace through faith.

Once he began to settle into his new Christian life with Christ, the Law then became a factor, and while he tried to keep the Law, that is when sin revived through the sin nature.

Now Paul finds himself failing (and I died) to the commandment of keeping the Law. He was trying to obey Christ through the flesh/Law.

 

[Van]

On a positive note, we agree that salvation doesn't bring about sinless perfection.

Yes we disagree in general, but we always do, Van. I gave you my thoughts on the OP, and here we are.

Christ released us from the bondage of sin, but we see that sin is still present, not as a bondage, it's in the form of the nature we inherited from Adam's fall. That's what Paul is discussing in Rom. 6-8.

We who are born-again are not bound to sin anymore, but as Paul said, "When I would do good, evil is present with me (7:21). This is the sin nature that is still with us. When we rely on self, our own ability the sin nature comes to life.

Rom. 7:9
"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

Paul was saved without the Law, he was alive in Christ without any part of the Law. he was saved by grace through faith.

Once he began to settle into his new Christian life with Christ, the Law then became a factor, and while he tried to keep the Law, that is when sin revived through the sin nature.

Now Paul finds himself failing (and I died) to the commandment of keeping the Law. He was trying to obey Christ through the flesh/Law.

Yes, for reasons unclear to me, we disagree in general. I presented an argument for the exclusive use of G4560 to refer to unregenerate or physical material. You have not said why you believe otherwise. Hard to proceed toward common understanding on that path.

 

[Charlie24]

Yes, for reasons unclear to me, we disagree in general. I presented an argument for the exclusive use of G4560 to refer to unregenerate or physical material. You have not said why you believe otherwise. Hard to proceed toward common understanding on that path.

Arguing the Greek is never a good idea nor a solid conversation.

I never argue what can be twisted to mean basically whatever you want it to mean.

So if the primary purpose of the OP is discussing the meaning of a Greek word, then disregard my posts.

 

[Van]

Arguing the Greek is never a good idea nor a solid conversation.

I never argue what can be twisted to mean basically whatever you want it to mean.

So if the primary purpose of the OP is discussing the meaning of a Greek word, then disregard my posts.

Yes, the primary purpose was to show that the two Greek words were not used interchangeably, and that therefore the use of one in 1 Corinthians 3:1 indicated Paul spoke to lost unregenerate people using spiritual milk. Opposition seems based on an agenda driven effort, rather than rational discussion of scripture. For example to put the meaning of the words used in the inspired text off limits, is irrational. To claim citing every usage of a Greek word is an effort to twist it to mean what it does not mean is irrational. I showed, in my opinion, how the word always, in all four usages, refers to physical material including unregenerate unspiritual people.

 

[Charlie24]

Yes, the primary purpose was to show that the two Greek words were not used interchangeably, and that therefore the use of one in 1 Corinthians 3:1 indicated Paul spoke to lost unregenerate people using spiritual milk. Opposition seems based on an agenda driven effort, rather than rational discussion of scripture. For example to put the meaning of the words used in the inspired text off limits, is irrational. To claim citing every usage of a Greek word is an effort to twist it to mean what it does not mean is irrational. I showed, in my opinion, how the word always, in all four usages, refers to physical material including unregenerate unspiritual people.

My effort was to explain "sarx" in the context of Scripture as Paul used it.

Not what you can make of it from the Greek.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, the primary purpose was to show that the two Greek words were not used interchangeably, and that therefore the use of one in 1 Corinthians 3:1 indicated Paul spoke to lost unregenerate people using spiritual milk. Opposition seems based on an agenda driven effort, rather than rational discussion of scripture. For example to put the meaning of the words used in the inspired text off limits, is irrational. To claim citing every usage of a Greek word is an effort to twist it to mean what it does not mean is irrational. I showed, in my opinion, how the word always, in all four usages, refers to physical material including unregenerate unspiritual people.

Paul never referred to the lost/unsaved person as able receive either spiritual milk or meat

 

[Van]

My effort was to explain "sarx" in the context of Scripture as Paul used it.

Not what you can make of it from the Greek.

Pointless to continue Sir.

 

[Van]

Paul never referred to the lost/unsaved person as able receive either spiritual milk or meat

Yet another false claim based on an agenda driven viewpoint. No mention of 1 Corinthians 3:1 which says Paul used spiritual milk to speak to lost/unsaved people.

 

[Charlie24]

Yet another false claim based on an agenda driven viewpoint. No mention of 1 Corinthians 3:1 which says Paul used spiritual milk to speak to lost/unsaved people.

This is an example of how wrong one can be when they place more confidence in Greek translation than in the context of Scripture.

 

[Van]

This is an example of how wrong one can be when they place more confidence in Greek translation than in the context of Scripture.

False claim belittling me and avoiding the topic. Why these advocating their indoctrination think the use of fallacious argumentation has merit is beyond me.

 

[Charlie24]

False claim belittling me and avoiding the topic. Why these advocating their indoctrination think the use of fallacious argumentation has merit is beyond me.

No avoiding, just pointing out error. In 1 Cor. 3:1, Paul is speaking to the Gentile Church at Corinth, he calls them "Brethren,"

The Gentiles are not his countryman, they are not Jews. He is calling them Brethren because they are Brethren in Christ.

They were saved, not lost as you claim.

 

[Van]

No avoiding, just pointing out error. In 1 Cor. 3:1, Paul is speaking to the Gentile Church at Corinth, he calls them "Brethren,"

The Gentiles are not his countryman, they are not Jews. He is calling them Brethren because they are Brethren in Christ.

They were saved, not lost as you claim.

On and on, change of subject posts are posted by those offering falsehood.

Did Paul, speaking to brethren address them in the same way he spoke to unregenerate lost individuals? Yes.

Their off topic posts are a smokescreed to hide biblical truth. That is why they post in my opinion.

Folks, please read the OP, that is what these posters are trying to obfuscate!

 

[Charlie24]

On and on, change of subject posts are posted by those offering falsehood.

Did Paul, speaking to brethren address them in the same way he spoke to unregenerate lost individuals? Yes.

Their off topic posts are a smokescreed to hide biblical truth. That is why they post in my opinion.

Folks, please read the OP, that is what these posters are trying to obfuscate!

Same old Van, screaming bloody murder when he is doubted.

I wouldn't be able to correct something that you hadn't posted, whether you see it as off topic or not.

 

[Van]

Same old Van, screaming bloody murder when he is doubted.

I wouldn't be able to correct something that you hadn't posted, whether you see it as off topic or not.

More addressing me and running from the topic. Folks, this is all they have.

The word used by inspiration in 1 Corinthians 3:1 refers to lost unregenerate people, and Paul used spiritual milk to address them, as he also did addressing new born believers.

The verse invalidates their false doctrine, thus they cannot even address the phrase "as to men of flesh!"

 

[Charlie24]

More addressing me and running from the topic. Folks, this is all they have.

The word used by inspiration in 1 Corinthians 3:1 refers to lost unregenerate people, and Paul used spiritual milk to address them, as he also did addressing new born believers.

The verse invalidates their false doctrine, thus they cannot even address the phrase "as to men of flesh!"

We disagree, and since you will always offer up a complaint about someone treating you unfairly when the disagreement takes place, I'm out or this conversation.