What Do the Scriptures Mean which speak of “the flesh?”

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 01-08-15 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

What Do the Scriptures Mean which speak of “the flesh?”

By: Msgr. Charles Pope

There is a common misunderstanding of the meaning of the Biblical phrase “the flesh.”  There are many references to “the flesh” in New Testament Scripture, especially in the letters of St. Paul. The phrase confuses some, who think it synonymous with the physical body or merely with sexual sin.

It is true that there are many times when Scripture uses the word “flesh” to refer to the physical body. However, when the definite article “the” is placed before the word “flesh” we are most often dealing with something else. Only very rarely does the Biblical phrase “the flesh” (ἡ σὰρξ (he sarx), in Greek) refer only to the physical body (e.g., John 6:53; Phil 3:2; 1 John 4:2); rather, it almost always the phrase refers to something quite distinct from merely the physical body.

fWhat then is meant by the term “the flesh” (ἡ σὰρξ)? Perhaps most plainly it refers to the part of us that is alienated from God. It is the rebellious, unruly, obstinate part of our inner self that is operative all the time. It is the part of us that doesn’t want to be told what to do. It is stubborn, refuses correction, and doesn’t want to have a thing to do with God. It bristles at limits and rules. It recoils at anything that might cause me to be diminished or to be something less than the center of the universe. The flesh hates to be under authority or to have to yield to anything other than its own wishes and desires. The flesh often desires something simply because it is forbidden.

The recent Protestant translations of the Bible such as the NIV often call the flesh our “sin nature,” which is all right unless the term “nature” is understood in the stricter philosophical sense. (For sin is not something that we should posit as coming from our nature, but rather as emerging more from our fallen condition, from the fact that our nature has been wounded.) In Catholic tradition, “the flesh” is where concupiscence sets up shop. Concupiscence refers to the strong inclination to sin that is in us as a result of the wound of Original Sin. If you do not think that your flesh is strong, just try to pray for five minutes and watch how quickly your mind wants to think of anything but God. Just try to fast or to be less selfish; then watch how quickly your flesh goes to war.

The flesh is in direct conflict with the spirit. “The spirit” here refers not to the Holy Spirit, but to the human spirit. The (human) spirit is the part of us that is open to God, that desires and is drawn to Him. It is the part of us that is attracted by goodness, beauty, and truth, the part that yearns for completion in God, the part that longs to see His face. Without the spirit, we would be totally turned in on ourselves and consumed by the flesh. Thankfully, our spirit, assisted by the Holy Spirit, draws us to desire what is best, upright, good, and helpful.

Perhaps it is good that we look at just a few texts which reference “the flesh” and thus learn more of the flesh and its ways. This will help us to be on our guard and to rebuke it (by God’s grace) and learn not to feed it. I make some comments in red following each quote.

1. The Flesh does not grasp spiritual teachings - [Jesus said] The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life (John 6:63).

Having heard Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist, most of his listeners ridicule it and will no longer take Jesus seriously. So Jesus indicates that their hostility to the teaching on the Eucharist is of the flesh. The flesh demands that everything be obvious to it on its own terms. The flesh demands to see physical proof for everything; it demands that it be able to “see” using its own unregenerate power. And if it cannot see based on its own limited view, it simply rejects spiritual truth out of hand. In effect, the flesh refuses to believe at all since what it really demands is something that will “force” it to accept something. Absolute proof takes things out of the realm of faith and trust. Faith is no longer necessary when something is absolutely proven and plainly visible to the eyes of flesh. The flesh simply refuses to believe and demands proof.

2. The flesh is not willing to depend on anyone or anything outside its own power or control – For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless….I [now] consider this rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ (Phil 3:3-9 selected)

The flesh wants to be in control rather than to have to trust in God. Hence it sets up its own observance, under its own control. And when it has met its own demands it declares itself to be righteous. Since the flesh hates being told what to do it takes God’s law and makes it “manageable” based on the flesh’s own terms. So, for example, if I am supposed to love, let me limit it to my family and countrymen but I am “allowed” to hate my enemy. But Jesus says, no, love your enemy. The flesh recoils at this for unless the law is manageable and within the power of the flesh to accomplish it, the Law cannot be controlled. The flesh trusts only in its own power. The Pharisees were “self-righteous” That is to say, they believed in a righteousness that they themselves brought about through their flesh power. But the Law and flesh cannot save. Only Jesus Christ can save. The flesh refuses this and wants to control the outcome based on its own power and terms.

3. The Flesh hates to be told what to do – For when we were controlled by the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. (Rom 7:5)

The disobedience and rebelliousness of the flesh roots us in sinful behavior and prideful attitudes. The prideful attitude of the flesh is even more dangerous than the sins that flow from the flesh since pride precludes instruction in holiness and possible repentance that lead to life. But the flesh does not like to be told what to do. Hence it rejects the testimony of the the Church, the scriptures and the conscience. Notice, according to the text, the very existence of God’s Law arouses the passions of the flesh. The fact that something is forbidden makes the flesh want it all the more! This strong inclination to sin is in the flesh and comes from pride and indignation at “being told what to do.” The flesh is refuses God’s Law and sets up its own rules. The flesh will not be told what to do.

4. Flesh is as flesh does - Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires. The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:5-6)

The flesh is intent on things of this world, upon gratifying its own passions and desires. On account of the flesh we are concerned primarily with ourselves and seek to be at the center. The flesh is turned primarily inward. St Augustine describes the human person in the flesh as “curvatus in se” (turned in upon himself). But the spirit is that part of us that looks outward toward God and opens us the truth and holiness that God offers. Ultimately the flesh is focused on death for it is concerned with what is passing away: the body and the world. The human spirit is focused on life for it focuses on God who is life and light.

5. The Flesh is intrinsically hostile to God – The mind of the flesh is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the flesh cannot please God. (Rom 8:7-8)

The flesh is hostile to God because it is pridefully hostile to any one more important than itself. Further the flesh does not like being told what to do. Hence it despises authority or anyone who tries to tell it what to do. It cannot please God because it does not want to.

6. The Flesh abuses freedom - You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another in love. (Gal 5:13)

The flesh turns God given freedom into licentiousness. Licentiousness is to demand freedom without limit. Since the flesh does not want to be told what to do it demands to be able to do what ever it wants. In effect the flesh says, “I will do what I want to do and I will decide if it is right or wrong.” This is licentiousness and it is an abuse of freedom. It results in indulgence and paradoxically leads to a slavery to the senses and the passions.

7. The Flesh Demands to be fed - So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. (Gal 5:16-17)

Within the human person is this deep conflict between the flesh and spirit. We must not be mistaken, the flesh is in us and it is strong. It has declared war on our spirit and on the Holy Spirit of God. When the spirit tries to obey the flesh resists and tries to sabotage the best aspirations of the spirit. We must be sober about this conflict and understand that this is why we do not do what we most know is right. The flesh has to die and the spirit come more alive. What you feed grows. If we feed the flesh it will grow. If we feed the spirit it will grow. What are you feeding? Are you sober about the power of the flesh and do you and I therefore feed our spirit well through God’s word and holy communion, through prayer and the healing power of confession. What are you feeding?

8. The Flesh fuels sin – The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-210)

This catalogue of sins that flow from the flesh is not exhaustive but is representative of the offensive and obnoxious behavior that flows from the flesh. Be sober about the flesh, it produces ugly children.

9. The Flesh hates authority -  This [condemnation by God] is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority. (2 Peter 2:10)

Clear enough, the flesh hates authority and, did I mention (?) The flesh does not want to be told what to do.

So here is a portrait of “the flesh.” It is ugly. You may say I have exaggerated, that the flesh is not really this bad. Well I am not, just buy a newspaper and see what the flesh is up to. You may, by God’s grace, have seen a diminishment in the power of the flesh in your life. That is ultimately what God can and will do for us. He will put the flesh to death in us and bring alive our spirit by the power of his Holy Spirit. But step one is to appreciate what the flesh is and understand its moves. Step two is to bring this understanding to God through repentance. Step three is, by God’s grace, to stop feeding the flesh and start feeding the spirit on prayer, scripture, Church teaching and Holy Communion. Step four is to repeat steps 1-3 for the rest of our lives. God by his grace will cause the flesh to die and the spirit to live by his grace at work in us through Jesus Christ.

[RnMomof7]

Yea.... I might out a football player or a baseball player or someone that actually worked on Sunday :)

[verga]

New Covenant, New Rules. You all keep whining that the law about consuming blood predates the OT. SO WHAT. Every new covenant SUPERCEEDES THE OLD ONE. Jesus could change the law about eating because HE WAS/IS GOD!!!!!!!

He could allow His apostles to work because HE WAS/IS GOD.

All of you prots: Do your self a big favor when you go to the butcher ask him what that reddish pink stuff is in the pan when you are cooking up a steak or hamburger.

[verga]

Some of us actually use our names.

Of course I am speaking to the same people that are terrified refuse to reveal the denomination they belong to or the degrees that they might have earned.

It might compromise them.

[roamer_1]

[RnMomof7:] The legalisms of the Sabbath were not given by God..they were man made rules

You have made an error.

The subject at hand is not 'whether the Sabbath', but rather, whether Yeshua broke Sabbath by gleaning grains on the side of the road as they went. It is a Pharisaical legalism which specifically defines that one cannot pluck grains, as it is considered as work.

The Seventh day Sabbath was ordained of YHWH in the very beginning (Creation), and will stand forever. Yeshua did not break the Sabbath.

[roamer_1]

NO WORK: INCLUDING PICKING SOMETHING TO EAT.

NONSENSE.

[verga]

Generally a person should follow the conversation before posting something.

[metmom]

Some of us actually use our names.

Only an idiot would use their real name on an internet forum.

Of course I am speaking to the same people that are terrified refuse to reveal the denomination they belong to or the degrees that they might have earned. It might compromise them.

No and no.

Basically, it's nobody's business.

And it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Besides, it's really entertaining to watch how it simply consumes some people because someone can't be baited into playing their gotcha games.

[roamer_1]

Jesus healed on the Sabbath and the Pharisees said the same thing to Him.

More than that: In the healing of the blind man... There is a specific Pharisaical injunction against spitting upon earth on the Sabbath, because that supposedly made mortar, and was considered work... It was not the healing only, but the method. Yeshua stuck his finger in the Pharisees' eye every chance he got. Once one researches a bit, it becomes almost comical in the ways that Yeshua directly opposed tradition.

[roamer_1]

Every new covenant SUPERCEEDES THE OLD ONE.

...While ratifying the older covenants (each respectively) into the new. Go study it. It is true. With the exception of Melchizedek/Zadok, the covenants are nested, one inside the other. It is not superseding as much as a further revelation.

He could allow His apostles to work because HE WAS/IS GOD.

What a capricious god it would be that would insist for 2500 years that a people were not to listen to ANYONE who broke the words he committed in the beginning, only to show up in the flesh and break those very laws so that his people would not believe...

EVERY SINGLE WORD YHWH has uttered is true, and every man a liar.

[roamer_1]

Generally a person should follow the conversation before posting something

I am following the conversation just fine.

[verga]

Yeah sure, maybe not so much.

[Slambat]

“I would never say that, I will just say: You are wrong.
Have a good day.”

I respect your decent reply and you have a good day also.

[Hope for the Republic]

Has anyone taken the time to learn and understand why God forbade the consuming of blood and the eating of certain foods?

1) Various pagan groups believed that the life of an animal, including humans, came from the blood, not from God.

2) They also believed that by consuming the blood or various organs including the heart and/or the liver that you could acquire the attributes of those enemies.

God didn't want them thinking that they could acquire these attributes and He wanted them to understand that all life came from God, even animal life.

In addition the prohibition about eating certain foods was because various animals commonly carry certain diseases. Trichinosis comes to mind.

When Jesus gave the bread of life discourse in John 6 and performed the consecration at the last supper He was making it clear that life come from God alone.

I hope this sheds light and does not add heat.

[metmom]

It sheds light and creates heat based on which side of the equation you’re coming down on.

But that can’t be helped. It comes with presenting the truth.

Thanks for the insight. That was very enlightening.

[roamer_1]

God didn't want them thinking that they could acquire these attributes and He wanted them to understand that all life came from God, even animal life.

In addition the prohibition about eating certain foods was because various animals commonly carry certain diseases. Trichinosis comes to mind.

When Jesus gave the bread of life discourse in John 6 and performed the consecration at the last supper He was making it clear that life come from God alone.

I think that you are assigning motives to YHWH which, while seemingly self-evident, are not necessarily true. In that is the inherent assumption that we are so much more intelligent and informed by way of comparison to our forefathers, and by way of that intelligence and information, we gain the hubris to change for ourselves what YHWH said was eternally defined.

It is the same old lie, right from the Garden: 'YHWH didn't REALLY say...'

[RnMomof7]

More than that: In the healing of the blind man... There is a specific Pharisaical injunction against spitting upon earth on the Sabbath, because that supposedly made mortar, and was considered work... It was not the healing only, but the method. Yeshua stuck his finger in the Pharisees' eye every chance he got. Once one researches a bit, it becomes almost comical in the ways that Yeshua directly opposed tradition.

I heard that for the first time a couple years ago..suddenly that scripture made good sense

[Syncro]

Check again about unB[sic]aptised children.

I did, and it came up the same. Pope Gregory The Great said that if a child isn't baptized he or she goes to hell when they die.

I don't believe that (neither does Jesus) and if you go back to my post you are replying to you will see my remarks showing how much Jesus loves children, even if the Catholic belief system hasn't put their "mark" on them.

I used the term "sprinkling" because that is indeed how Catholics "baptize" babies. I've seen it with my own eyes.

I am responsible for what I post. If you dislike what a person posted, you may address them personally or contact the RM.

My post to you was about your comment complaining about other posters "denigrate another's faith" so I felt that opened up the opportunigy to show you how those of your belief system do that quite often.

I think your next statement, If I don't like what another person posted, I can address them personally.

You were probably talking about this comment of mine:

...one highly respected leaders of your belief system says if children are not sprinkled (uses the term baptism, which sprinkling when a baby is NOT) and they die in childhood that God will send them to hell! [I've posted the proof of that recently if you don't believe it]

Sorry, Pope Gregory The Great doesn't post here (he's dead) and he is the "highly respected leader of your belief system" to which I was referring.

Plus I don't think any one here is a "leader" of your belief system, but many post like the are! In fact some post like they are the leaders of all Christianity! I LOL when ever I see comments with that pompous superior condescending attitude, trying to get other Christians to capitulate to Catholicism, and be subject to their pope...which is declared that ALL Christians must do. Not!

I have taken my own share of name-calling on this site, both personally and to my Catholic Faith.

Sorry about that, but not from me.

If that bothers you a lot, maybe you are too "thinskinned" for open threads.

Each of us believes that ours is the true belief system. I as a Catholic believe that my Faith comes closest to the truth.

True, Catholicism does come close to the truth.

But adds a lot to it, making it a bit confusing and extra-Biblical.

I am a simple Christian, and Christianity IS the truth, not just close to it.

Do I believe that everyone else is going to hell?

What a question, there is nothing in any of my posts to suggest that I think you believe that. In fact, I don't think anyone seeking God thinks that.

Hope that clears things up a bit

If it makes you feel better, cool.

I saw nothing unclear between you and I.

[Syncro]

When Jesus gave the bread of life discourse in John 6 and performed the consecration at the last supper...

I can't find in the Bible anywhere where Jesus "preformed the consecration" at the meal he shared with his followers just before he was crucified.

He broke the bread and said This is my body, take and eat.

Then with the cup, he said take and drink.

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63).

He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.

I don't think our all powerful jealous God would like to have a belief system have a priest squish Him into a little wafer.

And then be worshiped as it it was Him, our Almighty God. Really!

Even Peter, made a ex post facto pope hundreds of years after he died, calls it bread AFTER the "last supper."

Jesus calls it the fruit of the vine.

He also calls Himself the the door, the bread of life, the Vine...I won't go into that further, but I wish I could believe in the literal Living Waters, I would love to see them gushing out of my belly!

[roamer_1]

When Jesus gave the bread of life discourse in John 6 and performed the consecration at the last supper...

I would call your attention to the fact that the above quote is not mine - It was italicized in my post, and was part of what I was quoting from Hope for the Republic, for reference in my reply.

I can't find in the Bible anywhere where Jesus "preformed the consecration" at the meal he shared with his followers just before he was crucified.

Well, that depends upon what you might call consecrating... He did give thanks to YHWH in two parts, as is customary on special occasions and Holy Feasts:

The bread is broken and held aloft, And very likely he spoke these words:
Blessed are you oh YHWH, creator of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth...

Then he said, "This is my body..."

HE is the bread brought forth from the earth.

Then the cup:
Blessed are you oh YHWH, creator of the universe, who brings forth fruit from the vine...

Then he said, "This is my blood..."

HE is the fruit brought forth from the vine.

And as such, communion has been taken, since time immemorial by the Hebrews, long, long before there was ever a 'Christian'. It was nothing new, except in what Yeshua revealed.

He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.

As I said above, he was showing what the rite (which they were practicing) meant in it's fulfillment.

I don't think our all powerful jealous God would like to have a belief system have a priest squish Him into a little wafer.

Of course not. It is borrowed from the pagans - Wafer, monstrance, incense, pomp and circumstance, and all the jangly bits... It was, to the Hebrews, a simple prayer. Research Mithra.

And then be worshiped as it it was Him, our Almighty God. Really!

Idolatry, by definition. No different than the golden calf at the foot of Sinai.

[Slambat]

“How was that done and when?”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3245952/posts

“The fathers pledge their unwavering fidelity to the traditional doctrines regarding marriage and the true meaning of human sexuality as proclaimed in the Word of God and set out clearly in the Church’s Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.”

Gee I wonder why they are doing that? Could it be that some
high up (Pope and Friends) church leaders are trying to compromise or may be
negotiate with the word of God?

I’m surprised you are so ill informed on this subject.