Quick Answer: No, not always.
Key Scriptures:
Matt
5:29, 6:22, 26:26, 27:52 You can’t make sense of these verses
if you think of the word <soma> as being equivalent to <sarx> as
being equivalent to the material, fleshly body that will die and decay. In particular, at the death of Jesus, “many <soma> of the saints which slept arose…” Matt
27:52. Their bodies would have
decayed…their fleshly bodies. In this
passage, you might think the word should have been <psuche> or
<pneuma>. So, with respect to the
use of the term <soma>, the answer to the question is clearly "no".
Rom
8:11 “mortal bodies” -
<thnetos soma>; here Paul combines two words to make clear that he is
referring to our physical bodies. I
think that provides evidence that Paul might have used the word <soma> to
mean the whole person (including non-material parts of our whole person), but
wants to clarify in this case that his discussion is limited to the
physical. It seems that the word <sarx> would
apply here, so I'm not sure why Paul uses the combination of the two words
instead of just using the word <sarx> in this instance.
Rom 12:1 "present your <soma> a living
sacrifice..." I feel this
makes the most sense if <soma> is thought of as the "container of
you." Our fleshly bodies are part
of that sacrifice, but our <psuche-pneuma> has to be involved also.
Rom 7:18 "in my
<sarx> dwelleth no good thing..." yet in Rom 12:1 we are to offer our
<soma> as a living sacrifice. Therefore,
the <sarx> is the fleshly old nature that is incapable of doing anything
that is not totally self-serving and selfish; and is incapable of being
transformed. If we removed the selfish
portion of the <sarx>, there would be nothing left. So the <sarx> and the <soma> are not the same thing.
1Th
5:23 "And <de> the very <autos> God <theos> of peace
<eirene> sanctify <hagiazo> you <humas> wholly
<holoteles>; and <kai> I pray God your <humon> whole
<holokleros> spirit <pneuma> and <kai> soul <psuche>
and <kai> body <soma> be preserved <tereo> blameless
<amemptos> unto <en> the coming <parousia> of our
<hemon> Lord <kurios> Jesus <Iesous> Christ <Christos>."
I don't think, based on passages
like Romans 6-8, that the <sarx> can ever be considered to be blameless or
can ever be made blameless. Therefore,
this passage would seem to indicate that the <soma> is different than the
<sarx>. In this case, the
<soma> can be made blameless, referring to the "whole self"
(see Discussion below). Ultimately, achieving
the "whole-self blameless state" requires a new "physical"
body as described in I Corinthians (...sown perishable...rises imperishable,
etc.).
I
Cor 5:4-5 "When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am
with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man
over to Satan, so that the sinful nature {5 Or <that his body>; or
<that the flesh>} may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the
Lord." Salvation of the
<pneuma>. The flesh can be
destroyed by satan, but the spirit can live on in salvation. This seems in contrast to the “new
body”. Thus, it would seem that the word
<soma> is distinct from the word <sarx>. <Sarx> seems to only refer to the
physical body…and thus the translation to the word “flesh” seems to carry the
right connotation completely.
Caveat:
With
respect to the word <sarx>, I think the answer to the question at hand
would be "yes". I don't know of a scripture that uses the
word <sarx> to refer to anything other than physical flesh, at least in
context.
With
respect to the word <soma>, which is often translated "body",
the answer is definitely "no". There are clearly scriptures that use the
word <soma> to mean "the whole person", which includes their
non-material <psuche-pneuma>.
However, there are scriptures where <soma> is used in the passage
and it could be substituted for <sarx> and the meaning would be the
same. I could not discern a particular
pattern where <soma> was used instead of <sarx>.
Related Scriptures
and Thoughts:
I Cor 2:11 shows how our own
personal spirit knows the deep things going on within us. No one else (anyone who cannot be described
as "me") can really know the deep things going on within me. I think this is one thing that helps explain
the uniqueness of the <soma>. Each one of us is distinct from everyone
else around us. Where do we end and
others begin? It seems obvious to us
most of the time except maybe during pregnancy.
But one thing that defines the borders of "us" is that we know
our deep thoughts and those are not known to anyone else - and cannot be known -
unless we reveal it. Paul is making a
similar point about God - God is distinct and no one knows the deep thoughts of
God either, unless He reveals them to us.
Acts
2:30-31 speaking
of the resurrection… “his <psuche> was not left
in hell, neither his <sarx> did see corruption.” There is something fundamentally different
about the treatment of Jesus' body at death.
His <sarx> did not decay.
That was a supernatural thing - it is abnormal (meaning it is not natural).
Discussion:
I think
one of the really important principles here is that the "person"
remains intact after the resurrection.
There is a chain of custody of the "person". We retain our self-hood forever. We are not absorbed into a whole. Also, we are not just re-made as heavenly
clones that seem to be us. We stay as
us. We know that even our current bodies
are constantly changing molecules in and out.
But there is a chain of custody of "ourselves". There is no confusion in our minds thinking
that when we breathe out some carbon dioxide molecules that used to be part of
us, and breathe in new oxygen molecules that were just floating around in the
air a second ago…there is no thought that we are losing, in any way, what “we”
are or that we are become part of a cosmic whole. Here is one of those times where the academic
splitting of hairs is just unnecessary and not helpful. It is obvious to every human being that there
is a "them" and there are "others" and trying to delve
deeper is, in my opinion, searching for trivia that has no practical basis on
how we live our lives.
My
impression, after reading through the various verses, is that the word
<sarx> always refers to the physical, material, "going to die and
decay" body that we each have. The
word <soma> has a more interesting and nuanced meaning. There are certainly many times where the word
<soma> used to mean the same thing as <sarx>, but <soma> is
also used where the context clearly indicates a broader meaning. In my view, a proper description of the
meaning of <soma> would be: “the container of everything that is unique
to you.” Thus, sometimes the word
<soma> seems to refer to the entire person, including <sarx>,
<psuche>, and <pneuma> (and therefore also includes mind, will,
emotions, etc.). A key point to
Christian belief is that “you” remain “you” for eternity. Specifically, we do not become part of some
cosmic whole. We do not ever lose our
identity as a separate being from other humans and as a separate being from
God. I think the word <soma> is
often used to convey that concept. Thus,
when we are resurrected, we will have a resurrected <soma>. It is not made of flesh in the same material,
physical flesh that we have now. But we
will have a body: there will be some
“boundary” that separates what is defined as “me” from everyone else and
everything else. I believe this concept
is a fundamental Christian concept – an important doctrinal point. This would be one of those key sticking
points when people try to say that "all religions are the same." That is plainly false and this is one of
those cases where it is clear. Do
"you" stay "you" forever - yes or no? Christianity does not allow for any gray area
there - the answer is an unequivocal "yes."
The term
<soma> often does refer to the physical body because that is the context
in which we encounter others and even ourselves in the general context of
scripture. Scripture is written to
people living in the physical world. It
is not written from the perspective of us when we are in heaven. So when we see “us”, we see our physical
body. For example, Rom 8:13 -
"mortify the deeds of the <soma>" but also "if ye live
after the <sarx>" - here <sarx> and <soma> seemed to be
used interchangeably. It’s just
important to realize that the word <soma> can always mean more than the flesh.
I think
the distinction between <soma> and <sarx> is clearer when scripture
talks about us getting a new body. I
think that is always a new <soma>.
That is not difficult to understand if the word <soma> means the
“container” or “set of all items” that makes up the individual in
question. The New Testament is not
really giving scientific details about how this all works because it is not
necessary for understanding the whole concept.
The key thing is that we stay an individual after we physically die, and
therefore physical death is not the end of “us”…we each continue as a being,
distinct from every other being.
No comments:
Post a Comment