Is the Flesh Sinful?

I quote the following from NT Wright:

All this contextualizes one of Paul’s key technical terms, sarx, normally translated ‘flesh’. As is well known, Paul does not mean by ‘flesh’ simply physical substance. For that he normally uses soma, usually translated ‘body’. For him, the word ‘flesh’ is a way of denoting material within the corruptible world and drawing attention to the fact that it is precisely corruptible, that it will decay and die.

I suspect that neither of us is a greek scholar. NT Wright, on the other hand, has strong academic credentials. So I will, for the present, assume that he has his facts straight - Sarx, for Paul, never means simply "physical flesh". I chose the word "nature" poorly in my first post. I assert that what Wright says is, in fact, correct. Obviously, others can contest this.

 

The flesh is not evil. It is inanimate and has no moral qualities. Like a gun is unable to kill anybody, the flesh is unable to sin: someone needs to aim and pull the trigger of a gun and the flesh waits for the mind to direct it.

The flesh is like a fungus that mindlessly wants to feed and reproduce. Also, it was never created to be immortal. Even in the garden prior to sin it needed the tree of life to sustain itself.

God created man and put him in an environment that was going to test his love and faith in God. This environment included the very garden itself (the world), the serpent (Satan), and Adam's own flesh. This was and is the perfect environment for developing our character, mnost importantly our faith.

None of this environment is sinful "by nature". Even Satan himself was created perfectly.

After the fall, Adam's flesh did not change in any way, it was merely removed form having access to the tree of life and corruption took over ultimately leading to death.

The flesh is not intrinsicly sinful, it is sinful by abuse and we are the abusers.

 

You misunderstand what Wright has written: "for him the word 'flesh' is a way of denoting material within the corruptible world...that it will decay and die." That indeed is our flesh. It will decay and die. It is the "meat" of our body, our accumulative cellse. Our sin nature is not that which "dies," or ceases to exist as you believe. You have not understood what Wright has stated in your own quote.
Futhermore, sarx means flesh. It is the actual word for "flesh" and ought to be translated that way.
Soma is the word for body. This body is made of flesh. This soma is made of sarx. That is the difference between the two words. Soma simply means body.

 

Although I am not entirely certain of my own position here, I suspect that you are applying a non-Pauline conceptualization of the term "flesh". And, of course, what really matters is what Paul meant by the term, not what the term means to us in the 21st century. I think that Paul often, although not always, uses sarx in a manner where "flesh" indeed entails the "fallen-ness" of human beings.

A further opinion from NT Wright on the way Paul uses "sarx"

"The term “flesh” (sarx) is seldom if ever for Paul a merely neutral description of physicality; almost always it carries some hint both of the corruptibility and of the rebelliousness of present human existence"

I also quote from William Lane Craig with some comments inserted by me:

"During the nineteenth century under the influence of idealism, theologians interpreted the swma (Andre insert: soma, I think) as the form of a thing and the sarx (Andre insert: this is the greek word "sarx")as its substance. In this way they could avoid the objectionable notion of a physical resurrection, for it was the form that was raised from the dead endowed with a new spiritual substance. This understanding has now been all but abandoned. The view of swma as merely form and sarx (Andre insert: sarx) as its substance cannot be exegetically sustained"

Now Wright and Craig do seem to be slightly at odds. Elsewhere in his article, Craig goes on to say that sarx is sometimes used in the "morally neutral, physical stuff sense":

"But they seem prone to overlook the fact that Paul often uses sarx (sarx) in a non-moral sense simply to mean the physical flesh or body."

Nevertheless, both of these academics are clear: Paul does not always use sarx in the "substance-only, devoid of moral qualities" sense.

I researched other sources as well. They appear to be unanimous in their position: sarx is often used to denote more than simply physical substance. Here is another quote:

"Flesh" includes the human propensity to weakness and its solidarity with sin and death through Adam"

I suspect that you are using a non-Pauline definition of "flesh" here. Let me ask: On what do you base your understanding of what "flesh" means for Paul?

I suspect that the reality is, as is often the case, more complicated. Based on my 20 minute "researh", it seems that sarx is used in multiple different ways by Paul. So I suppose we need to look at each relevant text and not simply apply either of the following hermeneutical keys:

sarx = physical stuff with no moral qualities
sarx = physical stuff bearing the imprint of fallenness.

 

No I do not misunderstand Wright, although I agree that the first quote I provided was a little open-ended. Here is something else he says about "sarx":

"The term “flesh” (sarx) is seldom if ever for Paul a merely neutral description of physicality; almost always it carries some hint both of the corruptibility and of the rebelliousness of present human existence"

However, as per my previous,post, I think that "sarx" is indeed used in different ways - both the way you describe and the more "carrying rebelliousness" way that Wright emphasizes. This is more complicated than either of us might like.

 

No offense, but like usual, the "experts" confuse me more than anything.

Non-Pauline defintion of flesh? Why not just accept that flesh is flesh. I find no compelling reason to. It makes perfect sense to use the normal meaning of the word. I think it is the doctrine that you are in agreement with that causes you to choose to find some hidden meaning in what Paul is saying.

I don't see the bible, and Romans in particular, as needing any expert training. I would encourage you to read it without the help of these "academics" and look at what Paul says rather than what he means. I think you will understand it much better.

In conclusion, to answer your question, I think Paul uses sarx to mean flesh because that is what it really means.

If you are interested I can continue laying out with scripture why and how this makes scripture make sense.

 

Andre,

I disagree with you with all of my being that this is complicated. I think you and others are just complicating it.

 

Just as one of many examples, the following text from Galatians 5 proves that Paul sometimes uses the word "sarx" (flesh) to denote something other than mere "morally neutral physicality":

For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please

Cells do not have desires. There is a clear and unambiguous attribution of "moral", or at the very least, non-physical" properties to the term "flesh". Purely "physical" stuff does not have "desires". And certainly, the "purely physical" cannot "set its desire against the Spirit."

 

This is not how to read and interpret the Scriptures, in my opinion. We simply cannot plug in 21st century meanings to words and interpret accordingly.

Do you believe in eternal torment for the lost ? If you do, and if you apply the "normal meaning" of the word "death", you have a problem with Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, ....

The normal meaning of death involves the cessation of all life functions. That cannot work with the "eternal torment" viewpoint.

But apart from this, it just makes sense that we look at what the author understood the word "sarx" to mean, not what we take it to mean. Times and cultures change - we cannot simply and blindly transpose 21st century western meanings into material that was written 2000 years ago in an entirely different culture.

 

Did you really intend to write this statement? Surely, we are interested in the meaning Paul intended us to get.

 

Your flesh does not have desires? Aren't you a man with members desiring stimulation? Don't you have a stomach with an appetite? Your skin desires a very small temperature range. You wear sunglasses on the early morning ride to work as the sun rises. Your flesh is full of desires. It is supposed to. It was created to. These desires are not sinful. The lusts of the flesh are spoken of regularly.

The flesh has no ability to sets it's desires on the things of the spirit. I need to direct them to such.

Romans 6:19 "for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness."

 

You will get at the meaning of it. It is right there when you look at what he says.

Stop looking at scriptures as some piece of modern art or poetry from some deranged lunatic hiding his meaning in bizarre language. The bible was written for painters like me and average Joes around the world.

 

Do I believe in eternal torment? Yes.

Does Rom. 6:23 cause problems for me? No. The wages of sin is death. It is appointed for man once to die and then the judgement. After he dies the eternal torment begins if he is not declared righteous.

 

Gal 5
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
26 Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another