The flesh: primary, then secondary senses in the Scriptures

[jeremiah]

This is a redirect from the last few pages of the We are saved from What? thread.

Hello Dseusy,

Before I respond to yours, I wanted to make something clear. I'm hoping to eventually argue for a basic defintion of the flesh, one having roots in the first couple chapters of Genesis. Maintaining now what God said then, his creation was good. I would agree it doesn't take long in those stories that follow to see how human behavior quickly gives reason for a secondary sense with which to use "the flesh". Nonetheless, the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures maintain that being a living breathing person is still a good thing, and to be desired. The fact that this goodness of being alive is partaken of in flesh is not lessened by otherwise negative aspects of flesh giving rise to other uses of the word flesh. Why would it? You don't do the same with the many negative uses of "spirit" in the old or new testaments, what's the big beef with "flesh"? I suggest it's rooted in a misreading of how Paul intends his "in the flesh" and "according to the flesh" language to operate within his teaching and unfolding of the gospel. And indeed as well his intentions for a near equal use of "in..." and "according to the spirit" language. These concepts are flattened out and each given monotone voices which are then back projected onto almost any passage mentioning "flesh" thereby mistaking what the author may be intending to say. Except of course when we look at the immutable ones. For instance, "...and the word was made flesh and dwelt among us...", or in Psalm 84, "My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God." I think one is entirely mistaken to imagine God is intending to do away with the literal flesh as if it were something nasty, whether now or at the end. I believe rather God intends to redeem what has become corrupted and corruptible still in his creation, that we would be cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit (2Cor 7:1).

I said:

...much of the time when we offer praise, thanksgiving, or requests to God, we do so with our lips. Is this unprofitable? Clothes that cover the naked and food given to the destitute are sewn and grown by human hands. Are these unprofitable? Or what about Genesis 2:24, Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Is this joining also unprofitable? Or Genesis 2:7, And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Was God's gift of life to the first human a bad thing and also unprofitable? Am I arguing with the son of God himself? Not at all.

you responded:

God judges our actions by the heart... not by what we see. A man can praise God with his lips and curse God in their hearts. Self righteous hypocrites do seemingly good deeds all the time... such as giving clothes and food to the destitute. The deed is good and the receiver may praise God as a result, but the giver is judged by God aside from the deed itself- it is the hidden motives that reveal our condition in God's righteous eyes. Don't take it from me...

When I said "much of the time when we offer praise, thanksgiving, or requests to God, we do so with our lips." I had in mind the many psalms which describe this very thing. The fact that some people praise and thank God in truth with their lips and some in vain with their lips does not count against the act of worshiping and praising God with one's lips. How so?

When I said, "Clothes that cover the naked and food given to the destitute are sewn and grown by human hands." I had in mind Matthew 25:37-40. Again, the fact that some people do good deeds in vain and some righteously does not circumvent the fact that the righteous will be rewarded for doing so in the body when they stand before the judgement seat of Christ.

A man and a wife become one flesh... my wife and I are still separate flesh, so my understanding of this is children. But man is like grass... here one day and gone the next- like a vapor. This isn't lasting life. Flesh gives birth to flesh but Spirit gives birth to spirit... real life comes from being born again- spiritually.

Yes, I agree that real life comes from being born again- spiritually, but concerning "spirituality", why do you think it proper (according to the scriptures) to divorce spirit from flesh completely?

I said:

The flesh profits nothing to give life, for God made it to receive spirit and thereby be counted as alive.

you said:

That's not what the Word states... it states it profits nothing.

That's cute man, but it doesn't just state the three words you related here. It says the flesh profits nothing in direct opposition to the purpose of that which gives life. Jesus immediately compares the words he was speaking to the people with that exact process. Throughout scripture, the difference between a dead human and a living human is the absence or presence of spirit to breathe.

The word also states, " if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee." I think authorial intent is equally important in John 6 as it is in Matthew 5.

you said:

because we know no amount of a living, breathing human walking around constitutes closeness to the Lord.

How do you know this? There is much that could be said about how being a living breathing human is a good thing, but here's just one for now. In the Psalms there is a repeated phrase that comes up a lot. "The land of the living...", it is in this land that David and the other psalmist sure seem to wish to remain in, for the express purpose of being able to praise their God. Ps 116:8-9, Ps 142:4-7.

I hope you and I might continue this discussion, and I don't want this to be a big text dump so I'll stop here for now. Blessings to you brother.

[dseusy]

Hi Jeremiah!

I apologize for being so long replying.

This topic is "close to my heart", in that I've spent a chunk of my life trying to make the flesh good (not by the world's standards- by God's standards). I've started a reply a couple of times and realized that we will speak past each other if we don't start on some common ground- I feel this way because I believe God's laws are a foundation for a discussion about the flesh. Do you mind spending a little while on "the law" before we jump into the flesh? You have asked some good questions and I want to reply adequately and appropriately in brotherly love.

If so, I would like to gain an understanding of where you are at concerning "the law" as Paul describes it and what you feel changes between Old & New Testaments, and old & new covenants concerning our interaction with it.

[jeremiah]

Do you mind spending a little while on "the law" before we jump into the flesh?

Not at all man.

If so, I would like to gain an understanding of where you are at concerning "the law" as Paul describes it and what you feel changes between Old & New Testaments, and old & new covenants concerning our interaction with it.

Maybe this would be smoothest if you asked some specific questions directly from your own concerns about the law. What I may think changes between the old and new covenants is kind of a vague question, would you elaborate?

And no worries about the long silence.

Grace and peace be with you.

[dseusy]

Jeremiah,

Thank you... sounds good.

First question... What do you believe "the law" is as Paul describes it in Romans?

Second question... What is the purpose of the law?

Third question... If you could define a cut-off between the old & new covenants, how would you define it?

I'm not sure if I was specific enough, so let me know if I need to clear up any ambiguity.

Blessings