Paul's usage of

sa,rx

in Romans and GalatiansBy Owen WeddleIn what may be a somewhat puzzling word usage in an OT allusion, Paul in Romans 3:20alludes Psalm 143:2 in writing

ouvdikaiwqh,setai pa/sa sa.rx evnw,pion auvtou/

("no flesh will be justified before him"). Why this is interesting is that Psalm 143:2 in the LXX does not use the word

sa.rx

.Instead, it reads

ouvdikaiwqh,setai evnw,pio,n sou pa/j zw/n

("no one who is living will be justified beforeyou"). Why did Paul switch from

zw/n

in the LXX to his own usage of

sa.rx

? The journey that is takenin answering that question is one that will provide us much insight into Paul's anthropology and hisusage of

sa.rx

as a whole.

sa.rx

is a word with various nuanced meanings. Louw and Nida attribute eight differentmeanings to the term: flesh, body, people, human, nation, human nature, physical nature, and life.

Inaddition, Robert Jewett adds a possible ninth "The word

sa.rx

was chosen by Paul because itrepresented that which was circumcised and thus could be polemically characterized as that in whichone wished to trust."

Whether all these uses are proper understandings of the usage of the term or not,it is clear that

sa.rx

is used with many nuances and in different contexts.In perusing the list of meanings for

sa.rx

provided by Louw and Nida, there is a possible overlapwith

zw/n

. According to them, this is a rather figurative usage of the word with its only clear usageoccurring in Hebrews 5:7. However, one might question the legitimacy of this category. In Hebrews2:14-18, the necessity of Jesus taking on flesh was so that he was made like his brothers (or the"children of Abraham") in every way, as opposed to the angels. This was so that he could suffer inorder to be merciful. Additionally, the liberation from the fear of death is a result of Jesus taking upon"flesh and blood." This pairing of

sa.rx

and

qana,toj

("death") occurs also in 5:7. Instead, the

1J.P Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds.,

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domain

(NewYork: United Bible Societies, 1988).2Robert Jewett,

Paul's Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings

(Leiden: Brill, 1971), 96.

connotation seems to be more of mortality. We are left then with no explanation, then, of Paul's allusionthat doesn't require a conscious alteration or addition. Rather, Paul's usage of

sa.rx

in Rom. 3:20represents a purposeful move on his part that subtly delegitimates the Torah-observance crowd.However, one barrier on understanding Paul's usage of

sa.rx

is the relationship of the varioususes of the word to each other. Louw & Nida in the introduction to their lexicon write "it is much better to recognize the fact that

sa.rx

is simply a lexical item which serves to designate a cluster of relatedmeanings. By focusing attention on a cluster or constellation of meanings, one is inevitably forced tolook more closely at those distinctive features of meaning which are relevant for the different meaningssignaled by a single word or idiom."

They prefer to reject the attempt to try to relate the variousmeanings back to the concept of "flesh." While it is certainly true that any word can convey a pluralityof meanings, some of them even not related to each other or barely so, this is only one principle thatapplies to language. However, when describing a entity that itself is a combination of multiple ideas,the various meanings that might seem barely related are brought together in the one entity.For instance, say a friend says to you "I am going to the library" (if it is not obvious, thisexample is drawn from the fact that I am typing this in a library). At first blush, the immediate meaningwe might grasp from it is that he is going there to pick up some books at the library to read. That is themajor association we make with an entity call a library. However, as part of my rationale for being inthe library at the moment reveals, there are other reason to go there. One might also go to the library tohave a quiet place to go to for various reasons, such as to read, study, or simply to sit and relax. Also,there are frequently ways to access to the internet. In the end, there are many qualities that describe alibrary, and while the various meanings might share a relationship with each other (such as the fact thatfor some books are best read in quiet), their relationships with each other are increase since there are all part of the same entity.In apprehending the various usages of

sa.rx

, then, the concept of "flesh" may make reference to

3Louw & Nida, xv.

various features of the whole entity and are thus related through the entity. Furthermore, since thedifferent aspects are related, any quality that is associated with the whole might be said to affect theother parts of the whole. While this is only stands as a possibility of language and not a necessity, whenwe open up that possibility for Paul's usage of

sa.rx

, Rom. 3:20 may have a polemical intent.However, Romans is not a very argumentative letter, butRom. 3:20 is not the first time Pauluses the phrase

ouvdikaiwqh,setai pa/sa sa.rx

. It is also used in Paul's very polemical letter of Galatiansin 2:16. Romans stands as a more calm and reflective epistle that hits on the topic of the works on theTorah to a people that Paul has never met, whereas Galatians is a battle for the gospel with agitatorsfighting over Paul's converts. If the language of Rom. 3:20 was formed for a combative purpose, itwould certainly be plausible that

ouvdikaiwqh,setai pa/sa sa.rx

is a phrase Paul developed and reliedupon in his battle with the Judaizers. As we know in looking at the progression of events, Paul's sidewins out with the hierarchy of the church. It stands reasonable to think that

ouvdikaiwqh,setai pa/sa sa.rx

was a particular phrase to Paul that he kept because of its perceived success.In looking at Galatians, we can initially define the usage of

sa.rx

with three readily apparentcategories.

In 6:13

sa.rx

most likely takes upon the meaning that Jewett ascribes to the term; thecircumcision of the male sexual organ. However, in 2:19 it is used to refer to Paul's physical body as awhole. Then in 5:19, it stands as the source for sinful actions. It is clear that the first two observedusages can be related, because they both are used in direct reference to physicality. However, whatabout the "deeds of the flesh" in 5:19?Going back to Hebrews 2:14-18, the threat of death has an enslaving power. While notexplicitly contained in that passage, part of the purpose of Hebrews is to convey a behavioraltransformation that takes place through Jesus the High Priest and Sacrifice.

For the author of Hebrews,who is most likely influenced by or influenced Paul, the reality of death stands as a cause of sin.