Post
by steve » Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:54 pm
The root of the word "carnal", in English, like the familiar Spanish "carne" (meat, flesh) is in the Latin: carno-, carn-, carne-, carni-. (flesh, meat). The Hebrew word basar, and the Greek word sarx are the essential equivalents. Both are often translated "flesh" in English Bibles. Sarkikos ("Carnal") is the adjectival form of sarx and simply means "fleshly"
As with the Latin, Spanish and English words, the Greek word can mean "meat," such as people eat if they are "carnivores", or else the "meat" that is hanging attached to our bones (cf., Gen.2:21)—that is, our bodies.
In scripture, the Hebrew basar and the Greek sarx are very flexible words. They are used of "flesh" that is eaten (e.g., Gen.9:4; 1 Kings 17:6; Ps.50:13; 1 Cor.8:13); also of the human body (e.g., Gen.17:13; 1 Kings 21:27; Job 2:5; Ps.16:9; John 6:51). They are used of the totality of humanity, as in the phrase, "all flesh" (e.g., Gen.6:12, 17; Ps.56:4; Isa.40:5; John 17:2; Rom.3:20); and, less broadly, of one's own kin, as in "you are my flesh" (e.g., Gen.29:14; 37:27; Rom.11:14). Sarx is also used in phrases like "according to the flesh" with a meaning something like "according to nature" (e.g., John 8:15; Rom.1:3; 4:1; 8:4; 9:3; 1 Cor.10:18; 2 Cor.10:2; Eph.6:5). Thus, Paul's phrase "in the flesh" (Rom.8:8-9) can mean "in the natural state" (as opposed to "in the Spirit"—the regenerated state).
It is often thought by theologians that Paul uses the term to mean "sinful nature," in certain instances. It is entirely possible that Paul has such a meaning in mind, though it is not certain if, or how often, he means it with this specific connotation. Many English translations do us the disservice of simply translating "sarx" as "sinful nature," without informing us that this is not the translation of the word, but it is the translator's preferred interpretation of the word "flesh" (e.g., Galatians 5:19 NIV)
It seems to me that, when Paul uses the word "flesh" as essentially equivalent to the concept of "nature," he does not always have the sinfulness of our nature specifically in mind. It is my opinion that his focus is often on the "limitations" or "weaknesses" of our nature, unaided by grace. This weakness is manifested, of course, in our sinning, it is true. However, to assume that Paul always has in mind the corruption, rather than the impotence, of our nature may be a mistake—and has led to theologians coining the phrase "our sinful nature"—a term that has no Greek basis other than the word sarx, which, as I said, may not mean that exactly.
In any case, this interpretive practice, and the adoption of the phrase "sinful nature" (which has been institutionalized in many of our English translations) has given rise to the idea that there is a component within us that can be isolated for examination and discussion, called "the sinful nature." Once this convention has been adopted, it becomes natural to speak of the sinful nature as some thing that can be "eradicated," "subordinated," "suppressed," etc. From this concept arise various theories of what the work of sanctification does vis-a-vis the "sinful nature."
But nature is not a thing. "Nature" is simply a category (in contrast with super-nature, spirit, or grace) under which our complexity as humans can be discussed. We are one thing "by nature" (or "according to the flesh") and we are something else "supernaturally," that is, by grace. When Paul discusses "the flesh" in the sense of our nature, he definitely seems to be mindful of our natural propensity to do evil, but it is not the only aspect of our natural state that he might have in mind by use of the term. I think the determining of the precise usage of "flesh" in Paul's writings requires a case-by-case consideration of context. The broad-brushing of the term by the popular non-translation of sarx as "sinful nature," has not, in my opinion, been helpful, nor completely honest. In fact, it has been one of my pet peeves about certain Bible translations.
