"Flesh" (sarx)

The word “flesh” is used 147 times in the New Testament. Paul uses it 91 times.

The term “flesh” has several usages:

1. It refers to the material that covers human bones.

2. It indicates the body, physical existence.

3. It denotes humanity in general (including physical ancestry or human lineage).

4. It connotes the earthly sphere, the limited human realm, the natural human state or condition (in distinction from the spiritual or divine).

5. It signifies the seat of sinful behavior; the corrupt, fallen features of humanity (the eager vehicles of sin); the debased aspect of the human condition (sin and death’s sphere of influence); the human being in contrast to God; the drives, ambitions, and aims that are opposed to God; the self-seeking, self-regarding, and self-sufficient orientation that is often hostile to God (the autonomous self); the corrupted natural order or realm that is passing away (dying), which still generates degraded desires. (This is often called the "ethical" use of the term to distinguish it from the other more "neutral" uses.)

The negative "ethical" use of "flesh" in the fifth chapter of Galatians, is associated with a person’s detrimental passions and desires, specifically those that prompt a person to sin. Thus, “flesh” is, perhaps, best translated in that context as “sinful inclination.”

Although the term’s broad range of meaning and Paul’s varied usage make it notoriously difficult to translate, some renderings may be misleading. Three common ones deserve attention: First, “physical nature” is a poor translation because it implies that the physical body itself is inherently evil, rather than part of God’s good – but fallen – creation (e.g., the Gnostics believed that all matter is evil and that a human being is an eternal spirit that must somehow escape from the body it has been imprisoned in). Second, “lower nature” is a flawed rendering because it insinuates that human beings also have a higher nature that is uncontaminated by sin (this contradicts total depravity, which is arguably the biblical view that the Fall has adversely affected every aspect of human nature and existence – mind, will, emotions, relationships, and institutions). Third, even though “sinful nature” is a more suitable interpretation it is still somewhat slanted because it relies upon what I think is a mistaken reading of Romans 7; namely, seeing the inner tension articulated in the passage as a description of the Christian experience. Furthermore, this translation, like “lower nature,” continues to lend credibility to the erroneous notion that humans have two contrasting natures: a lower, sinful nature that exists in tension with a higher, spiritual nature. The real contrast that Paul is getting at is not between dual human natures, but between the now defeated domain of human depravity and the Spirit of God.