|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 10, 2010 11:12:03 GMT -5
I've brought this over from another thread: No wonder Paul used such strong language in Galatians 3:1-3, " You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?]" Morris, I have a real problem with that particular translation. The KJV expresses it as the "flesh," which, in my understanding, connects it to "Israel after the flesh," which is entirely old covenant (Law) related. And since the context of those Galatian's verses is about the Law, why then does your translation substitute it with human effort. No wonder why "works" is wrested out from its original context (as I was taught for years) to be human effort (as stated by me in a recent post) and NOT with the Law... This is a serious mistranslation...in my opinion of course. I've done some study on the meaning of 'flesh', brought about by statements like this, in an effort to find out how this concept is derived. In the passage above, specifically Galatians 3:3, 'flesh' was translated as 'human effort'. I do agree with mellontes that this isn't the best translation, but I don't think it is terrible either. There seems to be a contrasting of spirit and flesh, even faith and law. First, I'll begin by examining that word translated as human effort/flesh. The root word is Strong's #4561 and appears 151 times in the NT. It's definition according to Strong's is lengthy; Sarx - "flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specially), a human being (as such):--carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh(-ly)." This certainly makes it understandable why Paul contrasted it with the Spirit. However, this does not exclude the possibility that it was used as a metaphor. So with this in mind I wanted to look at how this word was used elsewhere in scripture. I'll begin by looking at the exact form of this word as it appears in our verse above, "Sarki" (transliterated as 'to-flesh'. It appears five times; Instance 1 - Galatians 1:15-17" But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus." Since it is used with 'blood', it is likely that 'flesh' is referring to 'the meat', and so combined mean natural man. The contrast here is that God called him to preach to the Gentiles, not any person or people. Instance 2 is Galatians 3:3 as we've seen. Instance 3 - 1 Peter 3:18" For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit" Christ was put to death in the flesh, killed bodily. Again we see a contrast between flesh and spirit. If flesh refers to 'Israel after the flesh', I'm not sure what this verse is saying. The flesh here is in reference to Christ as far as I can tell. Instance 4 - 1 Peter 4:1-4" Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries." This continues the thoughts from the previous verse. Is 'flesh' referring to the old covenant? If it is, is it not saying that anyone who suffers in that covenant has ceased from sin? Or, is suffering in the flesh related to no longer living 'for the lusts of men, but for the will of God'? I see yet another contrast displayed here; the will of natural man and the will of God. Instance 5 - 1 Peter 4:5,6" They [Gentiles of the previous verse?] will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." These are the very next verses to the ones above. The contrast appears just as it has in the previous examples; men in flesh to God in spirit. It may also be worth noting that 'men in the flesh' is connected back with Gentiles. So the question then arises, can flesh be understood as the law in any of the above verses? I'll be the first to suggest that it can be done in Galatians 3:3. What makes it so easy to do in my mind is the close correlation between the law and the natural, which is often contrasted to grace/faith and the spiritual. I have a far more difficult time doing so with the other verses however. Instance 1 - "I did not immediately confer with the law and blood"? Instance 3 - "Christ... being put to death in the law but made alive by the Spirit"? Instance 4 - "Christ suffered for us in the law, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the law has ceased from sin"? Instance 5 - "They [Gentiles of the previous verse?]... might be judged according to men in the law, but live according to God in the spirit."? These do not make sense to me in the context in which they are found. Looking at the other 175+ instances of the root word do not make the flesh = the law any clearer to me, for in some instances it appears applicable and in others definitely not. Further posts will explore some of these verses. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 10, 2010 12:10:25 GMT -5
This first follow up post will explore Galatians, beginning with 2:19, 20.
"For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."
This leads up to our previously discussed passage, but even here, note that he says he is living a life in "the flesh" and this life is by faith. If flesh is equated to old covenant law, Paul would be saying that his life of following that law is lived by faith. But that is completely contrary to what he just said; that he was dead to the law.
He no longer lives, yet his body is still alive; he is dead to the law, dead even to himself (no longer I), and his life that he lives here on earth is by faith in the Son of God. "Flesh" is not equated to old covenant law in this instance.
Galatians 4:13-14
"You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus."
Certainly speaking of the natural human body here.
Galatians 5:11-18
"And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off! For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law."
This one could easily be seen as the law since he discusses circumcision and the law. However, the next verses define Paul's use of flesh here:
Galatians 5:19-21
"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Are these the works of the law? No, they are the works of our flesh, our natural being. Continuing the passage, we see how the natural is, yet again, contrasted against the spirit;
Galatians 5:22-25
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another."
The law is said to be against the desires and passions of our natural being, and there is no law against the desires and passions (fruits) of the spiritual being (Christ). Remember that the law "was added because of transgressions" Galatians 3:19. The flesh transgresses against the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 10, 2010 14:15:38 GMT -5
Instance 1 - Galatians 1:15-17" But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus." Since it is used with 'blood', it is likely that 'flesh' is referring to 'the meat', and so combined mean natural man. The contrast here is that God called him to preach to the Gentiles, not any person or people. I likely won't have the time to go through each one of these... Morris, when you say " natural man" what do you mean? There is a contrast/comparison going on in that passage. Paul did not go to two groups: 1) "flesh and blood" 2) the apostles in Jerusalem If we take your definition to assume humanity or something like that (I'll wait for confirmation on that), then why group #2? Were they not part of humanity? (Od course they were - it is just rhetorical). I think it is better defined as Paul's old covenant cohorts for group #1 and the group #2 new covenant cohorts. Law versus grace. I just can't get away with that theme. And in reference to Christ being put to death in the "flesh," I see no problem with associating that as the old covenant type dying to be raised into the new covenant type - or something along those lines. Maybe more much later... If dying to the "flesh" meant anything bodily, then those Christians who had died to the flesh meant that they had died bodily. I think there is way more behind the word "flesh" other than human nature, or something similar. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 10, 2010 14:22:10 GMT -5
Instance 4 - 1 Peter 4:1-4" Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries." This continues the thoughts from the previous verse. Is 'flesh' referring to the old covenant? If it is, is it not saying that anyone who suffers in that covenant has ceased from sin? Or, is suffering in the flesh related to no longer living 'for the lusts of men, but for the will of God'? I see yet another contrast displayed here; the will of natural man and the will of God. I could say the same thing according to your definition. Like this: "Is it not saying that anyone who suffers as a natural man has ceased from sin?" That doesn't work either. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 10, 2010 14:31:51 GMT -5
. Instance 5 - 1 Peter 4:5,6" They [Gentiles of the previous verse?] will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." These are the very next verses to the ones above. The contrast appears just as it has in the previous examples; men in flesh to God in spirit. It may also be worth noting that 'men in the flesh' is connected back with Gentiles. Disagree. the " men in the flesh" is not referring back to the Gentiles. These Gentiles are the " they" in 1 Peter 4:6: 1 Peter 4:6 - For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. These Gentiles are associated with those dead who were preached to. It is the " men in the flesh" who judge them (these Gentiles). The meaning is unclear as to what is meant by "men in the flesh." It can have no relation to "bodily" because that would be ridiculously redundant. All men have flesh (human tissue). When one arrives at 1 Corinthians 15 and understands that flesh is not related to the physical body one takes on a different understanding of certain things - like "flesh" for example. Unless you do believe in a physical bodily resurrection back then and now? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 10, 2010 14:36:35 GMT -5
This first follow up post will explore Galatians, beginning with 2:19, 20. " For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." This leads up to our previously discussed passage, but even here, note that he says he is living a life in "the flesh" and this life is by faith. If flesh is equated to old covenant law, Paul would be saying that his life of following that law is lived by faith. But that is completely contrary to what he just said; that he was dead to the law. He no longer lives, yet his body is still alive; he is dead to the law, dead even to himself (no longer I), and his life that he lives here on earth is by faith in the Son of God. "Flesh" is not equated to old covenant law in this instance. Galatians 4:13-14 " You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." Certainly speaking of the natural human body here. Galatians 5:11-18 " And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off! For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." This one could easily be seen as the law since he discusses circumcision and the law. However, the next verses define Paul's use of flesh here: Galatians 5:19-21 " Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." Are these the works of the law? No, they are the works of our flesh, our natural being. Continuing the passage, we see how the natural is, yet again, contrasted against the spirit; Galatians 5:22-25 " But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another." The law is said to be against the desires and passions of our natural being, and there is no law against the desires and passions (fruits) of the spiritual being (Christ). Remember that the law "was added because of transgressions" Galatians 3:19. The flesh transgresses against the law. Please temper what I said about the "flesh" with my previous mention (somewhere) that NOT EVERY VERSE deals with an old covenant premise...sometimes it means human tissue, our body. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 10, 2010 15:08:32 GMT -5
Please temper what I said about the "flesh" with my previous mention (somewhere) that NOT EVERY VERSE deals with an old covenant premise...sometimes it means human tissue, our body. Thanks for the responses, mel. I'll comment on them soon I hope. However, to clarify my use of flesh (or natural man) as seen in this thread so far, it does not merely refer to human tissue or the physical body. I guess I didn't bring that out well enough, but you will find it in several passages above. These terms seem to insinuate a person's 'self', as Strong's suggest, "human being" or "human nature". And to flip-side your comment "that NOT EVERY VERSE deals with an old covenant premise", I don't think I should rule out that there are NO verses which deal with the old covenant either. I just don't see it as a general premise. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 10, 2010 15:50:02 GMT -5
Morris, when you say " natural man" what do you mean? There is a contrast/comparison going on in that passage. Paul did not go to two groups: 1) "flesh and blood" 2) the apostles in Jerusalem If we take your definition to assume humanity or something like that (I'll wait for confirmation on that), then why group #2? Were they not part of humanity? (Od course they were - it is just rhetorical). I think it is better defined as Paul's old covenant cohorts for group #1 and the group #2 new covenant cohorts. Law versus grace. I just can't get away with that theme. I can see this as plausible, but what throws it for me is the use of "and blood". Of the four other places where this 'flesh and blood' phase appears, none of them seem to be used as old covenant/law. Matthew 16:17 1 Corinthians 15:50 Ephesians 6:12 Hebrews 2:14 Again, this seems plausible to me. It is the follow-up verses that make me reconsider. We are also called to suffer as he did in the flesh, setting aside the lusts of men (lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries). The flesh and the lusts of men are then tied the will of the Gentiles and opposed to the will of God. This is what I am examining in this tread; when does the context speak of flesh as that which is natural and non-spiritual (including the being and the nature) and when does it speak of the law/covenant. Verses that I had though were likely speaking of the law now seem not to once I broaden my view of the passage. But that is of course 'in my view'. Exactly. Paul said " it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith". In this case, flesh refers to his body. Dying to the flesh... surprised me; I can't find the expression in scripture. I can find dying to sin, but not the flesh. It seems to appear mainly as don't live according to the flesh, its desires or lusts. Absolutely. There seems to be a connection to the mind as well, and desires and lusts. Would you mind sharing some passages in which flesh does mean the law/covenant? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 10, 2010 16:00:34 GMT -5
I can see this as plausible, but what throws it for me is the use of "and blood". Of the four other places where this 'flesh and blood' phase appears, none of them seem to be used as old covenant/law. Matthew 16:17 1 Corinthians 15:50 Ephesians 6:12 had Hebrews 2:14 And me, I see no problem at all with associating them that way... Mt 16:17 - Was it general humanity that had not revealed the truth unto Peter, or was it possibly some higher officiating religious body or teachings of this religious body? 1 Cor 15:50 - old covenant economy was judged. It was new covenant economy that saw life. If flesh and blood meant humanity, then humanity could not inherit the kingdom of God. Ephesians 6:12 brings us back to the satan argument. Who were these high officials? Were they Romans or were they Saducees and Pharisees? It certainly isn't our present governing poweres. It is these rulers (old covenant) that opposed the Gospel. The Romans really couldn't care less except for the "king" part. Hebrews 2:14 - doesn't it sem a tad redundant to mention that children are flesh and blood? What else could they be? That is why general humanity doesn't seem to fit. A hard passage nonetheless... |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jun 10, 2010 19:12:30 GMT -5
Pinch yourself- then you'll know what flesh is.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 10, 2010 20:41:09 GMT -5
Pinch yourself- then you'll know what flesh is. Yeah, right, Didy. Why don't you see if you can pinch this flesh? Romans 7:5-6 - For when we were (PAST TENSE) in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter[/b]. In the future, please reserve such comments for forums like CARM. Pinch this too: Romans 8:8 - So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. I guess since we are all clothed with human tissue none of us can please God... Please don't offer comment on my posts unless you are actively trying to contribute something worthy. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 10, 2010 21:43:34 GMT -5
... Galatians 5:11-18 " And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off! For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law."... Thanks for this study, Sheldon. I haven't read any further in the thread yet. If I don't write down what I'm thinking when it occurs to me, I'll forget and who knows how long it will be before it comes back to me? LOL. I think Galatians 5:18 relates to Hebrews 10:26. If you are led by the Spirit (you've received knowledge of the truth), you are no longer under the Law (and therefore can no longer use the sacrifices of the Law for for your sin. Galatians 5:18 NASB (18) But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Hebrews 10:26-29 NASB (26) For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, (27) but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. (28) Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. (29) How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? Galatians 5:18 is followed by the types of behavior that will not inherit the kingdom of God; then the list of the fruit of the Spirit and the statement that if we belong to Christ, we have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Galatians 5:24). In this case, flesh is neither Law nor physical body, but our evil inclinations that lead us to perform unholy deeds. Another parallel is the warning Paul gives in Galatians 5:21b - "... I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" with Hebrews 10:29,31 - " How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? ... It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 10, 2010 23:08:45 GMT -5
. Instance 5 - 1 Peter 4:5,6" They [Gentiles of the previous verse?] will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." These are the very next verses to the ones above. The contrast appears just as it has in the previous examples; men in flesh to God in spirit. It may also be worth noting that 'men in the flesh' is connected back with Gentiles. Disagree. the " men in the flesh" is not referring back to the Gentiles. These Gentiles are the " they" in 1 Peter 4:6: 1 Peter 4:6 - For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. These Gentiles are associated with those dead who were preached to. It is the " men in the flesh" who judge them (these Gentiles). The meaning is unclear as to what is meant by "men in the flesh." It can have no relation to "bodily" because that would be ridiculously redundant. All men have flesh (human tissue). When one arrives at 1 Corinthians 15 and understands that flesh is not related to the physical body one takes on a different understanding of certain things - like "flesh" for example. Unless you do believe in a physical bodily resurrection back then and now? 1 Peter 4:2,6 NASB (2) so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. (6) For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God. I think flesh in these two verses refers to our physical body of flesh. Other places, "flesh" refers to "the lusts of men," but in verse 2 above it refers to our time in this body no longer being slave to sin (lusts of men) but living by the Spirit (the will of God.) In verse 6, though still in this body of flesh, we live according to the spirit of God. The dead in verse 6 must refer to the spiritually dead, since it speaks of them being judged in the flesh (judged while the body still lives). The gospel is preached to them so that if they believe, they have the opportunity to live according to the Spirit of God even though they still exist as men. Yeah, it's confusing. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 11, 2010 0:02:57 GMT -5
... Hebrews 2:14 - doesn't it sem a tad redundant to mention that children are flesh and blood? What else could they be? That is why general humanity doesn't seem to fit. A hard passage nonetheless... Just a gut feeling at the moment, but I'm thinking flesh and blood here refers to temptation. Hebrews 2:14-15 NASB (14) Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, (15) and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. Hebrews 4:15 NASB (15) For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. James 1:14-15 NASB (14) But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. (15) Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Further discussion on Hebrews 2:14 - Heb 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, - The devil has the power of death. - James writes that sin brings forth death. This goes with the other thread that "the devil" is a mind not set on the will of God, which results in our succumbing to temptation and sinning. - Jesus defeated the devil and overcame death because he did not sin. Christ was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18), and we are to put to death the deeds of the body so that we may live (Romans 8:13). |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 11, 2010 7:57:02 GMT -5
I guess what is needed here is to answer the following question:
"What exactly is meant by "Israel after the flesh?"
It seems too specific to Israel to suggest that it simply represents human nature. Understanding the audience that is being addressed in regards to the flesh versus the spirit is also a requirement. To me, it seems that there are many (but not all) connotations to the old and new covenants.
To me, I see a strong correlations in the following passages of Scripture:
1. Galatians 4:4-5 - But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
2. Philippians 3:3-63 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
And at the same time, it seems that there are correlations regarding flesh to general humanity, as there are contexts to define the physical body.
Each one of these (flesh) needs to be handled within the individual Scriptural context in much the same way that "death" is to be handled. I think we are still too physically and bodily-minded in our handling of the Scriptures.
And what about this passage:
Hebrews 2:14 - Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
As I said before, it seems redundant to mention "children" and "flesh and blood" as human nature. It also seems that this "flesh and blood" is associated with death in that it was THROUGH THIS DEATH that the one who held power over it could be defeated. Obviously, it is not physical death.
I think that is all I can say on the matter. It is up for each one of us to do our own due diligence. It is a subject that needs to be given much more attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jun 11, 2010 11:48:32 GMT -5
Pinch yourself- then you'll know what flesh is. Yeah, right, Didy. Why don't you see if you can pinch this flesh? Romans 7:5-6 - For when we were (PAST TENSE) in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter[/b]. In the future, please reserve such comments for forums like CARM. Pinch this too: Romans 8:8 - So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. I guess since we are all clothed with human tissue none of us can please God... Please don't offer comment on my posts unless you are actively trying to contribute something worthy. Thank you. [/quote] Mell, what wonderful arrogance thou doth bestow. A precious gift to be sure. Your pomposity grants me a bit of levity. Your clueless acknowledgement of my statement gives my corner of the universe a bit of stability and happiness. My statement was a plain and simple answer to the question. But, plain and simple is not good enough in here. One wonders if the "simplicity in Christ" is good enough in here. I can't believe I actually have to explain my answer. But, once again I am in the position of having to take you by the hand and guide you from point A to point B. When statements are made about "the flesh," the foundation of that statement is that which one can pinch, whether it be works of lust of the flesh. And yes, it is impossible for we who are in the flesh to please God. That's why Christ came. That's why we need to have faith in Christ. Hebrews 11.6 states, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." I should have known that you would not understand my simple answer, as you are far to advanced to understand the simple. But, keep in mind, God uses the simple to confound the wise.  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 11, 2010 13:34:12 GMT -5
Didy,
If you had any semblance of how to interact with other Christians I wouldn't have to waste my time with you. Unfortunately for me, that is exactly what has transpired. It won't happen again.
I formally request that the administrators of this site prevent Didy from responding to any of my posts. And in return, I promise not to respond to any of his.
See you guys around...anyone going to Ardmore this July?
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 11, 2010 13:49:00 GMT -5
I did another long one, not expecting to when I started though. I want to make one thing clear as well, I think that the law and the working of its regulations can be viewed as something 'of the flesh' in some contexts. What I have looked for, and haven't been able to find as of yet, is a clear case in which 'the flesh' refers specifically (and exclusively) to the law and the old covenant. The challenge I find is that, while I can read the flesh as the law and it make sense, I am looking for an instance where it is clearly stated and confirmed. If I believe that scripture interprets scripture, and I do, I should be able to find this. And at the same time, it seems that there are correlations regarding flesh to general humanity, as there are contexts to define the physical body. I feel I should comment on this because, it appears to me, that you aren't including concepts such as the mind, temptations, the non-spiritual (temporal) state, and condition of the heart, in the fold of 'the flesh' (where applicable). Examples of these have been given in verses in above posts. Those verses define 'the flesh' in those contexts (a good example is Galatians 5:19-21). I feel this is important, therefore the reiteration. In all honesty, I have gone back and forward on this issue of the flesh many times, seeing it and not seeing, as I continued to look more and more into it. Although now I am at the point of not seeing it to a greater extent than before. Agreed. However, I don't limit 'the flesh' to 'physical' or 'body' only. Before I comment on the next portion I should also mention that it is very easy to visualize 'the flesh' as the law relating to Israel simply because that law deals with the flesh. Everything done by the law was seen in the physical realm even if it pointed to something spiritual. In fact, we are told that the law, despite being seen and conducted 'in the flesh', is a spiritual law. Romans 7:14 " For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin." That word 'carnal' is #4559 meaning, "pertaining to flesh, i.e. (by extension) bodily, temporal, or (by implication) animal, unregenerate" and is derived from the word we have been looking at, namely #4561. There is opposition between the spiritual law and the temporal flesh. Take circumcision as an example, it was in the flesh and in the law. Sacrifices were in the flesh and in the law. The law is seen as related to the flesh, but the flesh is not always related to the law. I have seen this an many of the verses above. The law was weak only because of the flesh. It is as though the flesh was the Achilles' heel of the law (for the law (spiritual) is opposed to the flesh (temporal)). "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" & "I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh" (Romans 6:19). Certainly it isn't saying that they just didn't have the muscle required. This seems to miss the point of the passage (IMHO); that man is flesh and blood, with temptations, trials, and subject to death, while God is spirit and not subject to those things. Therefore, Christ had to come and partake of the temporal nature of His brothers, the children of God. The passage talks about sufferings and temptations. Let's look at the broader passage, Hebrews 2:10-18 " For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying:
“I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You.”
And again: “I will put My trust in Him.”
And again: “Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.”
Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.
Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted." The whole message here, in my opinion, is that Christ had to become like His brethren; He had to go through suffering to be made perfect. As a spiritual being He would not have experienced this suffering. He who sanctifies had to be one with those being sanctified to be their brother. He had to experience death as the seed of Abraham experiences it, not as an angel might experience it. He had to be made like His brethren in all things, the sufferings and the temptations. Why? I believe it has to do with this statement, "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh...". Somehow, the flesh made the law weak. I see a connection here to the flesh and its desires and passions which make it susceptible to temptations. When Jesus said "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak", it was in regard to a warning to them that they not "enter into temptation" (Matthew 26:41 & Mark 14:38). The flesh cannot avoid this in and of itself. This is also seen in our passage in Hebrews above. Christ had to experience temptation (but not enter it) and suffering in the same manner as the rest of us. But being perfectly subject to the will of God, being from God, He was made perfect by being tempted and yet not sinning; " to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings". Coming back again to this statement, "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh" we see that Christ overcame the weakness of the law that was there because of the flesh; Romans 8:3 " For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" Furthermore, I find it interesting that Romans chapter 8 contains the same concepts as in Hebrews chapter 2; those of being sons of God, brothers of (and co-heirs with) Christ, sufferings and tribulation, and Him being able to aid those who are tempted. So, in this study I find that Christ had to come as a man and be subject to that which a man is subject to. In doing this, Christ overcame the weakness of the law, that man of himself cannot keep it. Hebrews 7:28 " For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever." Hebrews 4:15 " For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 11, 2010 14:56:34 GMT -5
This should hopefully be a really short one.  2. Philippians 3:3-63 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. I have a different thought on the meaning of this verse. I believe that when Paul says " we are the circumcision" he is referring " To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons". And that the circumcision that he is speaking about is spoken of here, Colossians 2:11, 13 " In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ... And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,". Now, what leads me to believe this? Philippians 3:2 "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation!" I think this is in reference to circumcision of the flesh. Strong's definition of "mutilation" here is striking; "a cutting down (off), i.e. mutilation (ironically)". I believe that after he writes this he asserts that " we are the circumcision", not the ones who's flesh is circumcised, but the ones who's hearts are circumcised, " who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh". Those who are truly circumcised worship God in the Spirit, not by mutilating their flesh; and worship God by faith, not by confidence in what they have in the flesh (natural, temporal). |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jun 11, 2010 17:50:03 GMT -5
Didy, If you had any semblance of how to interact with other Christians I wouldn't have to waste my time with you. Unfortunately for me, that is exactly what has transpired. It won't happen again. I formally request that the administrators of this site prevent Didy from responding to any of my posts. And in return, I promise not to respond to any of his.See you guys around...anyone going to Ardmore this July? I think that would be a good idea between the two of you if you both are having troubles with one another. For some reason it seems a good opinionated discussion turns into intollerance for one another. Someone always starts it and the other has to respond. I think we can police ourselves for the most part but lets don't leave a discussion board over this. P.S. Ted, I wanted to go to Ardmore and semi planned to do so but now I must go to New Hampshire to move my precious daughter back to live near us. Its one of those fly out and drive 1800 miles back with a loaded truck and towing a car things. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jun 11, 2010 19:35:14 GMT -5
Allyn,
I already don't respond to all of Mell's posts. But, in the most recent post I responded to, he made what I considered to be a snide and flippant remark.
"Yeah, right, Didy. Why don't you see if you can pinch this flesh?"
How do you understand this statement? However, I got a laugh from his post anyway. So, I thought I would respond with a bit of humor of my own. That whole first paragraph was a long-winded way of saying that he made me laugh.
I guess some people don't have the same sense of humor that I do. But, I've seen some stand ups actually get paid for saying a lot worse. So, just read that first paragraph and imagine Jay Leno saying it.
Didy
|
|
