Living in the “Flesh”

By I. Howard Marshall

[I. Howard Marshall is Honorary Research Professor of New Testament, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

This is article four in a four-part series, “Four ‘Bad’ Words in the New Testament,” delivered by the author as the W. H. Griffith Thomas Lectures at Dallas Theological Seminary, February 6–9, 2001.]

The world, the flesh, and the devil are a familiar triad that sums up the major evil influences on believers. Many have the impression that whenever they are tempted to do something wrong, this is because Satan is enticing them to do evil. However, New Testament references to Satan or the devil are more sparse than one might expect. Paul invoked Satan comparatively infrequently and not always as tempter.[1] Recourse to the devil as the source of human evil-doing is certainly there, but it is not the most characteristic explanation offered by Paul.

The second element in the triad is the world. The term κόσμος is used of the universe (Acts 17:24), or the earth itself as a totality (2 Pet. 3:6; sometimes in the phrase “the whole world,” Mark 14:9; Rom. 1:8), or, more narrowly, the inhabitants of the world (cf. the hyperbole in John 12:19). The inhabitants are often seen as fallen humanity, and so “the world” tends to mean “the totality of human beings as sinners and rebels against God” (Rom. 3:19). This rebellious attitude or indifference to God constitutes worldliness. Christians are sometimes tempted to “love the world” (1 John 2:15), to see what it has to offer as an attractive way of life and to fall in with the crowd that is going that way. Again, however, the world is not characteristically seen by Paul as the source of human sinfulness. His usage speaks of the arena in which human beings live. The same can be said even of John, who used the term much more frequently; the world is the sphere in which believers exist and which is largely opposed to them, a sphere of darkness in which the light of Christ is shining and offering life and salvation (John 8:12).

In Pauline theology the third member of the triad, the flesh, is probably the most significant.[2]

Some Lexical Considerations

Some New Testament words are inherently bad in that they refer to things or attributes that are irredeemable. As discussed in the first article in this series, by no stretch of the imagination can “sin” signify something good. But, as noted in the second article in the series, a “hypocrite” could be performing a perfectly respectable role, even if from wrong motives. And the third article discussed the fact that the word καυχάομαι (“to boast”) can refer to a sense of exultation and confidence in God that is wholly praiseworthy. But what about the Greek word σάρξ? To answer this question calls for beginning with linguistics before moving on to theology.[3] Louw and Nida seek to distinguish the various meanings of words and to emphasize that the meaning is not the same thing as the reference.[4] They then bring together words with related meanings by listing them according to the lexical domains to which they belong. A word with a number of distinguishable meanings will therefore be found in the corresponding number of domains. The significant point for the purpose of this article is that a given word can have a set of different distinct meanings.

Interestingly Louw and Nida use σάρξ as one of their introductory examples to make this point, emphasizing that their definitions for it are “clues to various areas of meaning.” But, they say, “such a listing should dispel forever the idea that σάρξ simply means ‘flesh.’ “[5] Further, “Rather than regarding σάρξ as meaning ‘flesh’ with certain semantic aberrations, it is much better to recognize the fact that σάρξ is simply a lexical item which serves to designate a cluster of related meanings.”[6] This term probably began with a specific meaning (“flesh”), but by various extensions it came to have fresh meanings that are connected with the original meaning, but that became increasingly distinct from it.

Louw and Nida find no less than eight distinctive meanings for σάρξ. First, “flesh” refers to the physical substance that covers bones and of which both animals and human beings, including Jesus, are largely composed (1 Cor. 15:39; cf. Luke 24:39; John 6:51–56; Rev. 17:16; 19:18, 21). These references show that the word can be used both of living and (occasionally) of dead flesh, including meat to eat.[7] The term “flesher” is archaic Scottish for a butcher. The actual physiology expressed by the term may be loose. “Flesh and bones” together make up a palpable human body as opposed to a ghost (Luke 24:39). “Flesh and blood” are distinguishable substances and are sometimes named together to signify the totality of physical life. Paul’s statement that “flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50) means that human beings in physical bodies will not do so.[8]

Second, the term by natural extension means the human body, since it is so obviously composed of flesh. When Paul wrote that no one ever hated his own flesh (Eph. 5:29), he was thinking of his body. In 1 Timothy 3:16 Paul wrote that Christ was manifested in flesh, that is, in a human bodily form. Similarly in Colossians 1:22 Paul referred to the way in which Christ brought about reconciliation “in his fleshly body,” where the phrase probably stresses the physical aspect of His death on the cross (cf. Eph. 2:15).[9] Paul referred to his own sufferings for the sake of the gospel as being in the σάρξ (Col. 1:24).

Where Hebrew had only the term בָּשָׂר to refer to the human body made of flesh, Greek had both σάρξ and σῶμα for this purpose, with the former generally referring to the substance of which the body is made and the latter simply referring to the body as an entity. It follows that in many cases these two terms overlap in meaning. Either can be used, for example, to refer to a person’s bodily presence as opposed to physical absence (1 Cor. 5:3; Col. 2:1, 5).

Third, σάρξ is used to refer collectively to human beings, particularly when thinking of them as weak or perishable. The phrase “all flesh” is found about forty times in the Old Testament, a point that shows that the Greek term has been shaped by the usage of the corresponding Hebrew word בָּשָׂר. Thus when Peter quoted Isaiah 40:6, which says that “all flesh is like grass” (1 Pet. 1:24), he meant that all human beings are perishable like grass. “All flesh” is thus “every being made of flesh” (including but not restricted to human beings). Similarly Paul quoted Psalm 143:2 in Romans 3:20 and Galatians 2:16 to deny that any human being can be justified before God by the works of the Law.[10]

Fourth, σάρξ can mean human, as in the phrase “our fathers of the flesh” in Hebrews 12:9. People today could use such a phrase to distinguish between a literal father and a stepfather or fatherly figure. However, the biblical usage arises out of the need to express from time to time a contrast with God as the heavenly Father.

Fifth, an unusual use of σάρξ is when a narrower group of people are distinguished who are related to one another by some physical link. Paul referred to a whole nation by this term. He spoke of Israel as “my flesh” (Rom. 11:14), meaning the people of which he was a member by virtue of physical kinship. And in Genesis 2:24 a husband and wife are said to be “one flesh” through their sexual union (Mark 10:8; Eph. 5:31).

Sixth, σάρξ shifts in a different direction to signify “human nature,” again as opposed to divine nature, or to what people may become by the power of the Spirit. Paul referred to those who are mighty, powerful, or wise “according to the flesh,” that is, in terms of their human nature or perhaps in terms of human estimates based on purely human considerations (1 Cor. 1:26). But the implication is that by divine standards and in the divine sphere they may occupy a different position, since God brings down the humanly mighty and exalts the humanly humble. Here the thought of the physical flesh has almost disappeared and the thought is of the world of human beings.

Seventh, σάρξ can refer more narrowly to physical nature as in reference to Ishmael who was born to Abraham “according to the flesh,” that is, by the normal physical human processes (Gal. 4:23, 29). But this also stands in contrast to the child born “according to promise.” Isaac’s birth was physical, of course, but there was a spiritual or supernatural element in that God enabled an elderly woman to conceive.

Eighth, σάρξ means life, as in Hebrews 5:7, which speaks of Christ “in the days of His flesh,” that is, the time of His incarnation, His life as a human being as opposed to His heavenly life (7:16 provides the contrast).

These uses of σάρξ may not be fully distinguishable, and one might perhaps dispute the classification in detail. But the principle that the word has a set of distinct meanings is clearly established.[11]

However, a danger exists with this approach. It may be illustrated from a point that arises in Galatians 6. Here in fact there may be a ninth meaning of the word, not listed by Louw and Nida. In the Old Testament בָּשָׂר is used, probably euphemistically, for the male sexual organ on which circumcision is carried out (Gen. 17:11; Lev. 15:2; Ezek. 23:20), and this idea may be present in Galatians 6:12–13, where Paul’s opponents who wanted to make a good impression in the σάρξ wanted the readers to be circumcised so that they might boast in their σάρξ.[12] One can see how there can be an easy oscillation between the broader sense of the term, in which σάρξ refers to life in the flesh as a whole and to the doing of things on an outward, observable level, and the narrower sense of the term to refer to a specific part of the human body. The result is that sometimes one can pass smoothly from one sense to another and regard them as connected because the same word is used. Consequently on many occasions Greek speakers may have made connections that do not occur to readers today if, for example, this one Greek word is translated by different, unrelated English terms when it has these different meanings. Translators must continually steer a course between providing precise translations of words that have several meanings and indicating the links between different occurrences of what for the Greeks was the same word.

Theological Considerations

In these usages of the term σάρξ there is apparently nothing inherently or particularly evil. True, flesh stands over against spirit and the divine, and it has a limited lifespan compared with the endless life of God. To the extent that it is different from the divine and that it is perishable and time-bound it is inferior, but it is not inherently bad.

Often the use of the term σάρξ draws a distinction between one realm and another. Thus the combination “flesh and blood” expresses a reference to human beings in contrast to God or other supernatural agents, including evil ones (Matt. 16:17; Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6:12; Heb. 2:14), or it can contrast physical beings with the spiritual bodies that alone can inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). Thus there is a broad distinction between the divine or the supernatural, on the one hand, and the human or the broadly physical, on the other.

Also occasionally a distinction is seen between two aspects of the human being. Everyone knows the difference between knowing that he or she ought to do something and feeling a desire or obligation to do so and yet feeling too tired or unconcerned to do it. A person might sense that he ought to get up from reading his book and do some work in the kitchen, but he cannot push himself to make the effort. In the words of Jesus to the sleepy disciples in Gethsemane, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh [σάρξ] is weak” (Mark 14:38). More generally σάρξ is used in reference to the human being as a person who suffers physical weakness and pains (2 Cor. 7:5; 12:7; Gal. 4:13–14). Although the weakness is often physical, it may be mental as well; the conflicts and pains Paul mentioned in 2 Corinthians 7:5 were a mixture.

Such language comes close to a dualism or contrast between the physical body and the mental or spiritual side of one’s nature, but there is no sharp distinction between the two. For example Paul spoke of “the mind of the flesh” in Colossians 2:18, meaning a mind that is dominated by the kind of desires associated with the σάρξ. A fluid boundary exists between using the term σάρξ for the physical aspect of a person and for the person as a whole.

It is, of course, impossible to avoid speaking in this dualistic kind of way because one of the characteristics of humanity is the capacity for self-observation and self-reflection in which a person can look at himself and what he has done or thought, and there is a tendency to think of that “bit” of the person that does the observing as the real “I.” So Paul could reflect on “the life which I now live in the flesh” (Gal. 2:20), almost as if there was an “I” inhabiting the body made of flesh. A simple dualism of this kind is untenable, because it is always possible to reflect on a previous act of reflection and then to reflect on that reflection on a previous act of reflection, and so on ad infinitum. And yet some kind of dualism does exist, in that Paul could contrast his present life “in the flesh” with the possibility of departing to be with Christ or of remaining in the flesh (Phil. 1:22–24). And there is something that can fall asleep and be awakened and be provided with a spiritual body at the Resurrection. The language of Resurrection suggests, however, that the actual body which died is raised up to new life.

The early Christians knew that the actual body of flesh perishes, leaving only the bones, and in the pictorial language of Ezekiel the bones could be reclothed with flesh and become alive again. How Paul envisaged any continuity between the dead body and the resurrected body is difficult to say. Had he faced the problem of what happens when there is not even a complete set of bones because they have been burned up? Certainly a crucial distinction can be noted between the σῶμα, which can be resurrected to new life, and the σάρξ, which is never said to be resurrected.

More important, however, than this way of talking about the different aspects of the human being is the distinction between the human and the divine. This needs to be explored on two levels: the contrast between the human and divine ways of life, and the contrast between human and divine ways of getting right with God.

Human Standards And God’s Standards

As noted, σάρξ can be used to refer to human life as distinct from life related to God and according to His standards. The two are distinct, but that does not necessarily mean that the former is sinful or wrong. Paul told slaves to be obedient to those who were their masters “according to the flesh [κατὰ σάρκα]” (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22). This phrase indicates that Paul was giving instructions regarding normal relationships in this world, and it conveys the fact that these masters were masters only in this temporary world and that Christians have a Lord who is in heaven.[13] Such was the case between Onesimus the slave and his master Philemon. Paul hoped Philemon would take Onesimus back “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother … both in the flesh [σάρξ] and in the Lord” (Philem. 16).[14] The meaning is clearly that Onesimus should be seen and treated like a brother in terms of ordinary human relationships but also in terms of his new spiritual kinship as a fellow believer. Similarly Abraham is the forefather of Jews “according to the flesh [κατὰ σάρκα],” Rom. 4:1), the Jews are Paul’s kinsfolk, and Jesus is by physical descent a Jew (9:3, 5; 11:14). And the Jew-Gentile distinction is based on a physical consideration (Eph. 2:11); Paul’s wording implies that it is purely physical and does not count religiously in the sight of God.[15]

Living in this human world also involves its standards of behavior and achievement, which are not necessarily God’s. As already noted, Paul referred in 1 Corinthians 1:26 to standards and judgments made on this basis, that is, on a human level. Such judgments are made on the basis of factors such as wisdom, wealth, and status, the kind of distinctions that result in some people being masters and some being slaves. Some people evaluate Christ in this way (2 Cor. 5:16). But all this stands in contrast with the standards of God, who does not evaluate people in these terms but chooses the weak and despised in the eyes of the world (James 2:5) and who expects that His standards will be observed in the church. He does this so that no σάρξ may glory or boast in His presence (1 Cor. 1:29). In this context σάρξ emphasizes the sinfulness of such an attitude of human self-sufficiency over against God.

As a believer, therefore, Paul protested that when he made his plans he did not do so according to the σάρξ (2 Cor. 1:17), although some people accused him of “living according to the σάρξ “ (10:2). This accusation led him to make a distinction between living in the σάρξ and living according to the σάρξ (vv. 3–4). This distinction is very similar to that made in John between being in the world and not being of the world (John 17:14–18). The phrase “in σάρξ “ is common enough for characterizing existence in the form of a human being and in a world of human beings (Gal. 2:20; Phil. 1:22; 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 John 7). Clearly the thought is not simply that of being in a body made of flesh but of being in a world composed of people who think and act in ways that leave God out. To be sure, the opponents of Paul were religious people, trying to please God, but they were doing so in their own way and not following the way He had given them (Rom. 10:2–3). In Romans 13:14 Paul counseled his readers not to take thought for the flesh so as to fulfill its desires (see also Col. 2:23; 2 Pet. 2:18; 1 John 2:16). These desires include more physical sins like drunkenness and sexual immorality, but they also include dissension and jealousy. The same combination of physical desires is seen in the fuller list of works of the σάρξ in Galatians 5:19–21.

This passage as a whole (5:13–26) requires further attention.[16] Paul was concerned here that believers who have come into the experience of freedom from life under the Law or under the elements of the world (4:3–5) should not come again into slavery. Because they are still in the σάρξ, there is the possibility that the σάρξ will seek to dominate their lives and make them sin. The life of the Christian resembles a battlefield, with the σάρξ and the Spirit in opposition to each other as they strive to bend the believer to follow their distinct ways. The works of the σάρξ will lead to exclusion from the kingdom of God. So the σάρξ still exercises its power over the believer through enticements to sin (cf. Eph. 2:3, of unbelievers). The antidote is expressed in two ways. The one is that the believer has crucified the σάρξ, passions and all. This statement corresponds with the statement in Galatians 6:14 that the believer is crucified to the world and the world to the believer. This means that believers are dead so far as the σάρξ or the world is concerned, and therefore its appeal should fall on deaf ears. The other is that believers must live and walk by the Spirit, whose power will enable them to overcome the σάρξ (5:16, 18, 25).

The same tension appears in Romans 8, where a distinction is made between living according to the σάρξ and according to the Spirit. The fleshly kind of thinking will lead to death (vv. 6, 13) as compared with the Spirit-inspired kind of thinking which leads to life. This is linked with the fact that the fleshly kind of thinking is opposed to God (v. 7). The connection of course is that death awaits those who are opposed to God. But in this passage Paul abandoned his careful distinction between life according to the σάρξ and life in the σάρξ, and he used the latter phrase in exactly the same way as the former in verses 8–9, particularly when he commented that his readers are no longer in the σάρξ (v. 9). There is no theological shift here from the language used in 2 Corinthians 10, but simply a flexibility in usage; in the light of the two contexts there is no room for confusion. And as in Galatians 5 Paul taught that believers in whom the Spirit of God dwells can be set free from sin; they are free from any constraint to obey the σάρξ.

Paul’s discussion is complicated because he referred to the Jewish Law. Believers are no longer under the Law, but by the Spirit they are enabled to fulfill the Law as it is summed up in the commandment to love one another. So they are not under the Law (Gal. 5:18), but they need not fear that living by the Spirit will lead them into any conduct that is contrary to the Law (vv. 22–23). Rather, they will be going beyond what the Law requires and will truly be obedient in the spirit rather than merely in the letter. The implication may be that here Paul was setting aside the ritualistic, outward regulations of the Law.

Getting Right With God

In Galatians 3:3 Paul contrasted the way in which the readers of the letter had begun their Christian lives, experiencing the operation of God’s Spirit in their midst, and the way in which they were now trying to continue it by means of the σάρξ. No doubt Paul was thinking of the way in which they were keeping various Jewish observances (4:10) and were being tempted to accept circumcision. These things were external and ritual, but that was not necessarily an argument against them, because one could argue that Christian baptism is an external ritual. It could also be argued perhaps that they were things that God had commanded people to do in the Law of Moses, and in that sense they were not purely human. But Paul would have rejected that argument because he was writing specifically to Gentile believers, and there was nothing in the Law that required people who were not Jews to keep these commandments. Rather, these were seen as human efforts to get right with God or to stay in the right with God.

Paul, however, rejected this way of getting right with God, because God had done what was necessary and there was no need of a human supplement to it, nor could there be. The alternative was to do human things and to place one’s trust in them, or to boast in them. And Paul rejected this route, because salvation is entirely a gift of God.

Paul also knew that humanity could not save itself in this way because human beings are incapable of providing what is necessary. The Law could not save people because of what Paul called its weakness because of the flesh (Rom. 8:3). People lack the ability to keep the Law.

This point is developed particularly in Romans. In chapter 7 Paul wrote about people who are “in the σάρξ” (vv. 5, 18). Such people are fundamentally rebellious against God, and this rebelliousness is “turned on” when they hear the Law. Paul said that when the commandment not to covet came before him, the effect was to arouse feelings of covetousness because of his sinful character. So he sinned, and the Law could not stop him from sinning. He knew that what the Law said was good and right and he wanted to do it, but he was unable to do so because he was σάρκινος (v. 14), a person living according to the ways of the σάρξ. He was not thinking of something merely physical. Covetousness is a sin of the mind, although it can have physical expression, and this would specifically be the case if the covetousness was sexual desire (which some have thought is the problem that lies behind Rom. 7).

Paul saw himself and everyone generally as incapable of doing what is right, however much they may recognize it and want to do it, because of their weak nature as human beings. Some might argue that this means that human beings are fundamentally good, but that they are prevented by some outside force from doing what they really want to do. However, although Paul talked of being a prisoner of sin and of being forced to do what he did not want to do, he never said that this was an excuse for his behavior.

The first article in this series noted that Paul talked of being overcome by the power of sin, like an enemy that had taken control of him.[17] Did he understand the σάρξ in the same way, and if so how does it relate to sin? It seems that Paul did not think of σάρξ in this way. When he spoke of living in the σάρξ, he meant that he was living as a human being in a form that is perishable and finite, experiencing the danger of being a sinner helpless to save himself. When he referred to being σάρκινος[18] or to living “according to the σάρξ,” he was describing the actual situation of a person who lives in that way. So to be a human being is to be a person who falls into sin. One cannot help sinning because of the power of sin, which is present both as a sort of external temptation but also as something that disposes one’s will to yield to temptation. Paul referred once to “the σάρξ of sin” (8:3), which seems to mean the human nature that is dominated by sin.

Some people respond to this situation by attempting to get right with God by keeping the Law. This would involve circumcision and the observance of the other aspects of the Law. But Paul rejected this aproach for a number of reasons.

First, Paul invoked a distinction already known in the Old Testament between circumcision in the σάρξ and circumcision of the heart (Jer. 4:4; 9:25). He regarded it as self-evident that the former means nothing if it is not accompanied by the latter (Rom. 2:25–29; Col. 2:11). Many people are tempted to assume that outward observance of the Law is sufficient to secure justification, but Paul ruled this out. Circumcision of the heart will express itself concretely in keeping the (other) commandments in the Law, by which Paul meant the moral ones (regarding stealing, adultery, robbery of temples).

Second, no one can keep these commandments because of the weakness of the σάρξ (Rom. 8:3). In Galatians 2:16 Paul affirmed that “no flesh [σάρξ] will be justified by the works of the law.” Jewett has noted that in this Old Testament citation (Ps. 143:2) Paul changed the text from “no one living” to “no σάρξ,” and he regarded the change as significant. Jewett himself thinks that Paul intended to refer to “no circumcised σάρξ,”[19] but perhaps Paul simply intended to mean “no human being inasmuch as they all share in the common weakness of the σάρξ to do what God requires.”

In this section of Galatians Paul did not comment specifically on the weakness of the σάρξ, as he did in Romans 8:3 (cf. 7:14), but he did so in effect later in the letter when he turned to the situation of readers who had experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives. He warned them not to use their freedom from having to keep the Law to be justified as an opportunity for the σάρξ to take control of them. Their human nature, which is evidently still there, is characterized by “desire,” that is, the desire to sin, and it is contrary to the desires that come from the Spirit to do good. The familiar list of the works of the σάρξ leaves no doubt as to what human beings do under the power of sin. Left to themselves without the aid of the Spirit, they sin.[20]

Third, Paul ruled out the possibility of being justified by the works of the Law because no one can obey the Law perfectly. This is the implication of Galatians 3:10: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the book of the Law” (italics added), and this is certainly the teaching of James 2:8–11. The rationale for this principle lies in the argument that to break one commandment of the Law is to take one’s stand against the Law as a whole and not simply to be guilty of adultery or murder; it is to resist the God who gives the Law.

Fourth, Paul argued that obedience to the Law is ruled out because God has appointed the way of faith as the way of justification and salvation. Justification is achieved by what God Himself has done. If justification were possible by the Law, Christ would have died in vain, that is, there would have been no point in His death. This implies that because people could not be saved by the Law, God sent Christ to die for them. Nevertheless some people in the church were attempting to get right with God by the works of the Law or believed that faith in Christ needed to be complemented and completed by the Law.

So human nature has two sides in relation to God. On the one hand it is weak and succumbs to sin, from which it cannot free itself. On the other hand it also wants to get right with God, and it attempts to do so by actions that are outward and rest on human effort instead of trusting solely in the work of Christ. The close connection between this attempt at justification and the σάρξ is to be seen in Paul’s comment that “no σάρξ will be justified by the works of the law” (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16).[21] This connection is especially seen in the contrast he drew in Philippians 3:3–11 between having confidence in the flesh (which he expounded in terms of circumcision, Hebrew lineage, and faultless obedience to the Law), and having the righteousness that comes from faith in Christ. Those who wanted the Galatian Gentile believers to be circumcised wanted to be able to boast in their σάρξ (Gal. 6:12–13). Efforts to be justified by circumcision and the Law are categorized as belonging to the σάρξ. Thus human sinfulness and human efforts to get right with God are paradoxically both associated with the σάρξ.

Summary

This exposition thus far has shown that the following seven points can be made.

First, σάρξ can refer simply to the substance of which human beings are made. It thus tends to refer to life on a physical, outward level that is temporary over against the eternal, spiritual life associated with God.

Second, the term can therefore be used with reference to judgments made on outward appearance and human considerations. Again such judgments may be perfectly valid, but the usage carries the implication that this area of existence stands in contrast with another.

Third, the term tends to be used in deliberate contrasts. One such contrast is between the outward and the inward, or between judgments based purely on outward considerations and those that take other less tangible considerations into account.

Fourth, in particular σάρξ is used in contrasts between the human and the divine (or the spiritual or supernatural), the perishability and mortality of human beings, which stands in contrast with the eternality and life of God. Since mortality is connected with the divine verdict on sin, it is difficult to avoid altogether a certain negative estimate of σάρξ.

Fifth, closely connected with the perishability or the “physical weakness” of the flesh is the moral and spiritual weakness that opens up the liability to yield to sin. This is partly because the fleshly body is the locus of those desires (e.g., the desires for food, drink, and sexual gratification) which can lead to sin (e.g., gluttony, drunkenness, and sexual immorality). These desires are perfectly legitimate, if they are satisfied in accord with God’s will. In this sense the sphere of the σάρξ has certainly expanded to include the whole of human nature. The once-favored translation of σάρξ as “lower nature” (New English Bible; altered to “old nature” or “unspiritual nature” in the Revised English Bible) is misleading. Better paraphrases are “earthly nature” (Translator’s New Testament); “human nature” (Good News Bible; New Jerusalem Bible); “natural inclinations” (New Jerusalem Bible); or “sinful nature” (New International Version).[22]

Sixth, at the same time this can affect religion as well. Here σάρξ conveys the idea of outward observances, specifically circumcision and the festivals and food laws, without which some of Paul’s opponents claimed that people could not be justified before God. These items were laid down in the Law of Moses, and hence people could be described as putting their confidence in (or boasting in) the Law, the works of the Law, or the “flesh.”

Seventh, over against this type of approach Paul wrote of a superior way, namely, that of the Spirit. However, it is necessary to spell this out rather carefully. There is the familiar antithesis between the σάρξ and the Spirit regarding the Christian life by those who have been justified. This theme is developed in Romans 8 and Galatians 5, which refer to believers who can overcome sinful desires by committing themselves to the guidance and power of the Spirit, which is now present in their bodies.

But what about the way in which people are saved in the first place? Philippians 3:1–11 refers to confidence in the σάρξ, by which Paul meant circumcision and other aspects of Judaism including observance of the Law. He declared that he had abandoned such confidence for the sake of Christ. Instead of gaining a righteousness of his own, he now claimed a righteousness that comes through faith in Christ. The antithesis of flesh and Spirit does not seem to be relevant here. So when Paul talked in Galatians 3:3 about beginning with the Spirit and completing with the σάρξ, he was not thinking about the Spirit as the means of salvation. Instead, as verse 2 makes clear, he had in mind the gift of salvation, which is attained by faith, not by works of the Law. Here then what is done in the σάρξ and what is done in faith are implicitly placed in antithesis.

What, Then, Is The Σάρξ?

What exactly, then, is the σάρξ? Is it some kind of entity? The interpretations of the term are quite varied. Jewett adopts the view that σάρξ stands in some of its occurrences for a power, more specifically a demonic power, that is associated with the old age and characterizes it as evil, and stands over against the new age, in which the Spirit of God and salvation are present. Paul’s thinking, according to Jewett, depends on Jewish apocalypticism in which the flesh is said to have this force.[23]

Another influential view is that of Bultmann, who adopted an existential interpretation of σάρξ. Bultmann’s hermeneutical tactic is often that of taking a concept that in his view was expressed in mythical fashion, demythologizing it, and then reinterpreting it in an existential manner, which tells what the biblical author was “really” saying when the concept is freed from its mythological formulation. However, it is important to note that Bultmann did not consider the flesh to be a demonic power. Paul did speak of both the flesh and sin as if they were demonic rulers, but this is figurative, rhetorical language, not mythology. For Bultmann “ ‘flesh’ in itself only means the human sphere as that of the earthly-natural and of the weak and transitory…. life ‘in the flesh’ is a spurious life…. it is not merely the earthly-transitory contrast to the transcendent-eternal God but opposes God as His enemy.”[24]

Bultmann’s view is developed more fully by Schweizer. “Bodily and mental functions are viewed in comprehensive unity as a common expression of human life. Both can separate man from God and both can be put in the service of God…. [The flesh] becomes bad only when man builds his life on it…. The flesh seems to be a power which controls man. Yet it is his own wrong disposition.”[25] Similarly Sand believes that the term is simply descriptive of human beings in their opposition to God and that there is no apocalyptic, cosmic dimension to it. It “implies a theological understanding of mankind subject to the power of sin.”[26]

These statements seem to be generally acceptable. Σάρξ is that aspect or constituent of humankind that is not in itself necessarily sinful but which is weak and cannot resist sin.[27] At the same time Paul occasionally spoke of the σάρξ as a force opposed to the Spirit.

Certainly Paul spoke in much stronger terms and more consistently of sin as a power that overcomes people. The impression is that human nature has been invaded by an alien power, namely, sin, a spirit of rebelliousness against God and self-gratification. Salvation from this situation consists in three things. First, there is the cancellation of the sins that put humankind in the wrong with God. Second, there is deliverance by the power of the Spirit from the power of the σάρξ with its propensity to sin. And third, there is the resurrection of the body; the actual flesh perishes but is replaced by a new spiritual body which is eternal and imperishable.

Conclusion

This series has examined four concepts that belong to what may be called the “bad” words of the New Testament. Two of them were unequivocally negative in that they referred to behavior that was plainly contrary to the will of God, namely, sin and hypocrisy. One of them expressed an attitude whose character was determined by its object; the Greek verb καυχάομαι refers to a positive attitude of exultation and confidence when its object is God and His mighty acts of salvation, but it refers to the negative attitude of pride and misplaced confidence when its object is human qualities, characteristics, and achievements on the basis of which a person might falsely hope for salvation. And the fourth concept, flesh, is used in a broad range of ways to signify a physical substance and then a human being or beings in contrast to God and subject to sin, weakness, and ultimate corruption.

Although σάρξ must be translated in different ways in different contexts, nevertheless because these are all meanings of the same Greek term, there are inevitable links between the different usages and to some extent they “infect” one another. Therein lies one of the difficulties in arriving at firm conclusions regarding this word. Something of the negativity that is only too obvious in some of its usages tends to affect the other usages also. Similar things can be said of the other words examined in this series. The words for “sin” had a broad range of meaning from individual acts of evil to a menacing power that can control human beings. And ὑπόκρισις can refer to various associated but distinguishable attitudes.

Hopefully this series has demonstrated the need to examine words in their contexts rather than to assume one single meaning for them, and to recognize that concepts may be present where the key words are absent.

On a theological and practical level, though these four areas of faults may exist in Christians’ lives, believers can recognize, in light of God’s Word, where they may easily go astray and can learn to mend their ways with the enabling of the Holy Spirit.

Notes

1. Satan is also referred to as “the evil one” (πονηρός) and the tempter (ὁ πειράζων), but the number of references is not many.
2. Discussion will be confined for the most part to the Pauline corpus, since it has the fullest theological development of the idea.
3. See Eduard Schweizer, Friedrich Baumgärtel, and Rudolf Meyer, “σάρξ, σαρκικός, σάρκινος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 98–151; Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, trans. and ed. James D. Ernest (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 3:231–41; Horst Seebass and Anthony C. Thiselton, “Flesh,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 1:671–82; Richard J. Erickson, “Flesh,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 303–6; and George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 466–75. See also Ernst DeWitt Burton, The Epistle to theGalatians (Edinburgh: Clark, 1921), 492–95; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: SPCK, 1955); and W. D. Stacey, The Pauline View of Man in Relation to Its Judaic and Hellenistic Background (London: Macmillan, 1956), 154–80.
4. J. P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988).
5. Ibid., xiv.
6. Ibid., xv.
7. By contrast the corresponding Hebrew term בָּשָׂר is used only of living flesh (except perhaps in Ezek. 32:5).
8. For this expression see Sirach 14:18.
9. The interpretation of Colossians 2:11 “in the stripping off of the body of flesh” is not certain. It may refer in a gruesome way to the death of Christ or, perhaps less probably, to the stripping off of the believers’ old, sinful nature in their identification with Christ’s death at baptism. See Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 116–17; and James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 157–58.
10. Interestingly the Septuagint of Psalm 143:2 has the words “no living being,” following the Masoretic text, but Paul modified the verse by substituting the familiar idiom “flesh.” The reference to the works of the Law is also a Pauline addition.
11. One can applaud the pioneering attempt of Louw and Nida to determine the distinct meanings of the Greek words and assign them to domains, while recognizing that their work may need some revision or correction in detail.
12. For this interpretation see Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 96. The same meaning may be present in Romans 2:28 (Schweizer, “σάρξ, σαρκικός, σάρκινος,” 7:129), and Colossians 2:13.
13. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 226–27.
14. The fact that Paul included the phrase “in the σάρξ “ meant that Philemon could not get away with regarding Onesimus simply as a Christian brother without letting this new relationship affect their ordinary daily life. When the implications of this phrase are taken seriously, then it is evident that there can be no place for slavery in a Christian understanding of society.
15. A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, 1990), 135.
16. See J. L. Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Edinburgh: Clark, 1997), 251–66.
17. I. Howard Marshall, “ ‘Sins’ and ‘Sin,’ “ Bibliotheca Sacra 159 (January-March 2002): 3-20.
18. Paul used the two adjectives σάρκινος andσαρκικός without any obvious difference in meaning.
19. Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 97–98.
20. Of course people do not commit sin all the time, and they are not as bad as they could be. Unbelievers are not living with the help of the Spirit, and yet many of them do not commit adultery, theft, or acts of violence, or at least not all the time. It is possible for people to live comparatively good (though not perfect and certainly not righteous) lives apart from Christ and the Holy Spirit.
21. Jewett interprets Romans 4:1 as asking, “What shall we say that our forefather Abraham found according to the flesh [κατὰ σάρκα]?” The implied response is that Abraham found nothing because he was not justified by works (ibid., 142-44). Most scholars, however, connect the phrase “according to the flesh” with “our forefather.”
22. None of the modern versions uses one single English term to translate σάρξ. The equivalents given above are for the uses of the term in such passages as Romans 8 and Galatians 5, where it refers to human nature as the seat of sinful desires.
23. Jewett’s view of Paul’s usage is considerably more complex than this, in that he also argues that in places, notably in 1 and 2 Corinthians and to some extent also in Romans, Paul’s thought was influenced by Gnosticism, and he imparted Gnostic nuances, although he remained opposed to Gnostic thought and sought to correct it. The question of the origin of Paul’s distinctive usage has not been satisfactorily answered. The most significant parallels are to be found in the Qumran scrolls, on which see Meyer, “σάρξ, σαρκικός, σάρκινος,” 110–14; and Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 92–93.
24. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1952), 1:236.
25. Schweizer, “σάρξ, σαρκικός, σάρκινος,” 7:135.
26. A. Sand, “σάρξ, σάρκος,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 231.
27. It refers to “man as a whole, seen in his fallenness, opposed to God” (Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 472). It is “die das menschliche Leben insgesamt bestimmende Seins- und Lebensweise” (“the way of being and living that totally controls human life”; P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992], 1:276).