Flesh

Flesh signifies the riches, goods, and possessions of any person or subject conquered, oppressed, or slain, as the case is. Thus in Psa 74:14, the meat, or flesh there mentioned, is the riches and spoils of Pharoah and the Egyptians. See also Isa 17:4; Mic 3:2-3; Zec 11:9; Zec 11:16; in all which places flesh is explained by the Targum, of riches and substance. Thus in Dan 7:5, "to devour much flesh," is to conquer and spoil many enemies of their lands and possessions.

All the Oneirocritics concur in the same exposition of this symbol. In chap. 283. they say, "That if any one dreams that he finds or eats the flesh of dragons, he shall obtain riches proportionable from a great king, which is like that of the Israelites eating the flesh of the Leviathan or dragon, the king of Egypt in the Wilderness, Psa 74:13-14. Again, in chap. 285., "To dream of eating the flesh of a scorpion, denotes the being possessed of the estate of such an enemy as answers to the signification of the symbol."

The Indian, in chap. 87., says compendiously, and at once, "Flesh is universally interpreted of riches."

To the same purpose speaks also Artemidorus, who, in Lib. 3. c. 23, says "That it is not good for a rich man to dream that he eats his own flesh; for it signifies the utter wasting of his riches or substance." So also in Lib. 1. c. 72, "To dream of eating the flesh of any wild beast, denotes the being greatly enriched by the substance of enemies."

The word flesh hath different meanings in Scripture. It is a word of general acceptation in respect to animal life. Hence the apostle to the Corinthians, chapter the fifteenth, and thirty - ninth verse, saith, "All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." And, hence, when the Lord determined the total destruction of the world, except the church preserved in the family of Noah, he said, "The end of all flesh is come before me. (Gen. vi. 13.) Butbeside this general acceptation of the word in relation to all animal life, the Scripture hath a more confined and special sense in reference to human nature. - - "Hide not thyself from thine own flesh; meaning, thine own nature. (Isa. l8. 7.) There is another and more endearing sense of the word flesh, when spoken of in Scripture in relation to the types and affinities of families. Thus in the instance of the sons of Jacob, when some were for killing Joseph, Judah restrained from the deed, saying, "What profit is it if we slay ourbrother, and conceal his blood? Let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother and our flesh." (Gen. 37. 26, 27.) And there is yet a far more endearing sense in which the word flesh is used in Scripture, when spoken of in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ; the nearest of all types, and the tenderest of all brothers. "For we are members (saith the apostle) of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Eph. v. 30.) But the term flesh hath also another sense, when by of opposition to the spirit, it is taken as acomprehensive expression of our whole corrupt and carnal nature by the fall. "I know (saith Paul, ) that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." (Rom. v. 18.) And elsewhere the same apostle saith, The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." (Gal. v. 17.) And hence when by the gracious work of regeneration wrought in the heart by the sovereign power of God the Holy Ghost, believers are then said tobe not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, it so be that the Spirit of God dwell in them." (Rom. 8. 9.) And hence this new life of God in the soul is called union with Christ, in living upon Christ, and walking with Christ. "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, even so he that eateth me shall live by me." (John vi. 57.)

a term of very ambiguous import in the Scriptures. An eminent critic has enumerated no less than six different meanings which it bears in the sacred writings, and for which, he affirms, there will not be found a single authority in any profane writer:

1. It sometimes denotes the whole body considered as animated, as in Mat 26:41, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

2. It sometimes means a human being, as in Luk 3:6, “All flesh shall see the salvation of God.”

3. Sometimes a person’s kindred collectively considered, as in

Rom 11:14, “If by any means I may provoke them which are my flesh.”

4. Sometimes any thing of an external or ceremonial nature, as opposed to that which is internal and moral, as in Gal 3:3, “Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect in the flesh?”

5. The sensitive part of our nature, or that which is the seat of appetite, as in 2Co 7:1, “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit;” where there can be no doubt that the pollutions of the flesh must be those of the appetites, being opposed to the pollutions of the spirit, or those of the passions. 6. It is employed to denote any principle of vice and moral pravity of whatever kind. Thus among the works of the flesh, Gal 5:19-21, are numbered not only adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, drunkenness, and revellings, which all relate to criminal indulgence of appetite, but idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, and murders, which are manifestly vices of a different kind, and partake more of the diabolical nature than of the beastly.

This word bears a variety of significations in Scripture:—

1. It is applied, generally, to the whole animated creation, whether man or beast; or, to all beings whose material substance is flesh (Gen 6:13; Gen 6:17; Gen 6:19; Gen 7:15, etc.).

2. But it is more particularly applied to ’mankind;’ and is, in fact, the only Hebrew word which answers to that term (Gen 6:12; Psa 56:4; Psa 145:21; Isa 40:5-6). In this sense it is used somewhat figuratively to denote that evil principle which is opposed to the spirit, and to God, and which it is necessary to correct and subdue (Gen 6:5; Job 10:4; Isa 31:3; Mat 16:17; Gal 1:16, etc.)

3. The word ’flesh’ is opposed to ’soul,’ or ’spirit,’ just as we oppose body and soul (Job 14:22; Pro 14:30; Isa 10:18).

4. The ordinary senses of the word, namely the flesh of men or beasts (Gen 41:2; Gen 41:19; Job 41:23), and flesh as used for food (Exo 16:12; Lev 8:17), are both sufficiently obvious; and with respect to the latter see Food.

5. The word ’flesh’ is also used as a modest general term for the secret parts, in such passages as Gen 17:11; Exo 28:42; Lev 15:2; Eze 23:20; 2Pe 2:10; 2Pe 2:18; Jud 1:7-8. In Pro 5:11, the ’flesh of the intemperate’ is described as being consumed by infamous diseases.

The substance of which the bodies of men and animals are composed. In the Bible, besides the ordinary sense, Job 33:25, it denotes mankind as a race, Gen 6:12 Psa 145:21 Isa 40:5-6 ; and all living creatures on the earth, Gen 6:17,19 . It is often used in opposition to "spirit," as we use body and soul, Job 14:22 ; and sometimes means the body as animated and sensitive, Mat 26:41, and the seat of bodily appetites, Pro 5:11 2Co 7:1 . In the New Testament, "flesh" is very often used to designate the bodily appetites, propensities, and passions, which draw men away from yielding themselves to the Lord and to the things of the Spirit. The flesh, or carnal principle, is opposed to the spirit, or spiritual principle, 1Ch 8:1-39 Gal 5:17 .\par

Flesh. See Flood.

In an ethical sense opposed to "the spirit." Gen 6:3, "for that lie also (even the race of godly Seth) (is become) flesh (carnal)." When the salt of the church has lost its savor, the whole mass is corrupt and ripe for judgment. 1Co 1:26, "wise after the flesh," i.e. with wisdom acquired by mere human study without the Spirit. Contrast Mat 16:17; Mat 26:41. Not the body, which is not in itself sinful; it was through thinking it so that Gnostic ascetics mortified it by austerities, while all the while their seeming neglecting of the body was pampering "the flesh" (Col 2:21-23). "The flesh" is the natural man, including the unrenewed will and mind, moving in the world of self and sense only.

Self imposed ordinances gratify the flesh (i.e. self) while seemingly mortifying it. "Trouble in the flesh" is in their outward state, namely, through the present distress (1Co 7:28). So Joh 6:63, "it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and are life." Not the outward flesh, but the word of Christ, is what gives life. So Peter understood Christ, as his reply shows: "Thou hast the words of eternal life." "To know Christ after the flesh" (2Co 5:16) means to know Him in His mere outward worldly relations, with a view to "glorying" in them (Joh 8:15; Php 3:3-10); as Judaizing Christians prided themselves on the fleshly advantage of belonging to Israel, the nation of Christ, or on having seen Him in the flesh, as a ground of superiority over others (2Co 11:18; 2Co 10:7).

Contrasted with knowing Him spiritually as new creatures (2Co 5:12; 2Co 5:15; 2Co 5:17). Outward rebellions toward Him profit nothing (Luk 8:19-21; Joh 16:7; Joh 16:22; Mat 7:22-23). All outward distinctions are lost sight of in experiment, ally knowing Him in His new resurrection life (Gal 2:6; Gal 2:20; Gal 3:28; Rom 6:9-11; 1Co 15:45; 1Pe 3:18; 1Pe 4:1-2); disproving both Mariolatry and transubstantiation. In Rom 4:1, "what hath Abraham found, as pertaining to the flesh?" i.e. as respects carnal ordinances (circumcision). "All flesh," i.e. all men (Luk 3:2; Joh 17:2).

I. בָּשָׂר, basar [Chald. בִּשִׂר, besar’] (so called from its plump freshness), σάρξ, terms of extensive application in the O. and N.T. (see Gesenius, Heb. Lex.; Robinson, N.T. Lexicon; Wemyss, Clavis symbolica). They are applied generally to the whole animal creation, whether man or beast; or to all beings-whose material substance is flesh (Gen 6:13; Gen 6:17; Gen 6:19; Gen 7:15-16; Gen 7:21; Gen 8:17); and to the flesh of cattle, meat, as used for food (Exo 16:12; Lev 7:19; Num 11:4; Num 11:13). SEE FOOD. Specially:

1. All flesh, i.e. all men, the human race, mankind (Gen 6:12; Psa 6:2; Psa 145:21; Isa 40:5-6; Luk 3:6; Joh 17:2; Act 2:17; 1Pe 1:24; Mat 24:22; Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16);

2." Flesh," or the body, as distinguished from " soul" or " spirit" (Job 14:22; Job 19:26;. Pro 14:30; Isa 10:18; Joh 6:52; 1Co 5:5; 2Co 4:11; 2 Corinthians 7; Col 2:5; 1Pe 4:6); so also "flesh and blood", SEE BLOOD as a periphrasis for the whole animal nature or man (Heb 2:14);

3. Human nature, man (Gen 2:23-24; Mat 19:5-6; 1Co 6:16; Eph 5:29-31); spoken also of the incarnation of Christ (Joh 1:14; Joh 6:51; Rom 1:3; Eph 2:15; Col 1:22; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 5:7; Heb 10:20; 1Pe 3:18; 1Jn 4:2-3; 2Jn 1:7);

4. As the medium of external or natural generation, and of consequent kindred, relationship (Gen 29:14; Gen 37:27; Jdg 9:2; 2Sa 5:1; 2Sa 19:13; Joh 1:13; Rom 9:8; Heb 2:11-14; Heb 12:9); of one’s countrymen (Rom 9:3; Rom 11:14; Act 2:30; Gal 4:23); also of any other person, a fellow-mortal (Isa 57:17);

5. "Flesh" is also used as a modest general term for the secret parts (Gen 17:11; Exo 28:42; Lev 15:2-3; Lev 15:7; Lev 15:16; Lev 15:19; Eze 23:20; 2Pe 2:10; Jud 1:7); in Pro 5:11, the "flesh" of the intemperate is described as being consumed by infamous diseases;

6. Spoken of circumcision in the flesh, the external rite (Gen 17:11; Rom 2:28; 2Co 11:18; Gal 3:3; Eph 2:11);

7. Spoken figuratively of human nature as opposed to the Spirit of God (Gen 6:3; Job 10:4; Isa 31:3; Psa 56:4; Jer 17:5; Mat 16:17; 2Co 10:4; Gal 1:16); the unregenerate nature, the seat of carnal appetites and desires (Meth. Quart. Rev. April, 1861, p. 240 sq.), whether physical or moral (Rom 7:5; Rom 8:1; Rom 8:4-5; Rom 8:8; Galatians v, 16,17; Eph 2:3); and as implying weakness, frailty, imperfection, both physical and moral (Psa 78:39; Mat 26:41; Mar 14:38; Joh 3:6; Rom 6:19; 1Co 15:50; 2Co 10:3; Eph 6:12).

Other terms occasionally rendered "flesh" in the O.T. are שְׁאֵר, sheer’ (from a similar idea of fulness), Psa 73:26; Psa 78:20; Psa 78:27; Pro 11:17.; Jer 51:35; Mic 3:2-3 (elsewhere "food," "body," "kin"), which has more especial reference to the muscle or physical element, as food or a bodily constituent (see Weller, Erklarung d. zwei hebr. W"Srter. בָּשָׂר und שְׁאֵר, Lpz. 1757); also טִבְחָה, tibchah’, a slaughtered carcase (1Sa 25:11; i.e. “laughter," i.e. slaughter- house, Psa 44:22; Jer 12:3); and לִהוּם, lechum, food (Zep 1:17; " eating," Job 20:23).

II. ESHPAR’ (אֶשְׁפָּר), an obscure Heb. word, found only in 2Sa 6:19; 1Ch 16:3. The Sept. appears to understand by the term some peculiar sort of bread (ἐσχαρίτης, ἀρτοκοπιακός v. ar. ἀρτοκοπικός), and the Auth. Vers., following the Vulg. (assastura bebulce carnis, pars assae carnis bubulae, apparently with the absurd derivation from אֵשׁ, fire, and פָּר, a bullock), renders it " a good piece of (roasted) flesh." But there, can be little doubt that it was a certain measure of wine or drink (for שְׁפָר’with אprosthetic), a measure, cup., An approach to the truth was made by L. de Dieu, who, following the same etymology, understands a portion of thee sacrifice measured out (Gesesius, Heb. Lex. s.v.)- SEE MEAT.

FLESH. The word flesh (בָּשָׁר, σάρξ) is used both in the O. and N.T. with a variety of meanings, physical, metaphysical, and ethical, ’the latter occurring especially in the writings of St. Paul.

I. Old Testament.— In the O.T. it designates

(1.) a particular part or parts of the body of man and of animals (Gen 2:21; Gen 41:2; Job 10:11; Psa 102:6);

(2.) is a more extended sense, the whole body (Psa 16:9; Psa 84:2) in contradistinction from the heart (לֵב) ar soul (נֶפֶשׁ)-the body, that is, as - possessed of a soul or spirit - (Lev 17:11; Job 12:10). Hence it is also applied

(3.) to all living things having flesh (Gen 6:13), and particularly to man and humanity as a whole, which is designated as "all flesh" (Gen 6:12). It is often connected

(4.) with the ideas of mutability,’ of degeneracy, and of weakness, which are the natural defects of the flesh proper. It is thus represented as the counterpart of the divine strength, as the opposite of -God or of the Spirit, as in 2Ch 32:8, " With -him is an -arm of flesh, but with as is the Lord our God to help us" (see also Isa 31:3; Psa 78:39). To this we can also add Gen 6:3 the only passage in the O. T. in which the word approaches to an ethical sense, yet without actually acquiring it. The peculiar softness of the flesh is also

(5.) the basis of the expression "heart of flesh" (לכ בָּשָׂר, as opposed to "heart of stone" (Eze 11:19).

(6.) The expression "my flesh" (oftener "my flesh and bone"), to indicate relationship ’(Jdg 9:2; Isa 58:7), evidently refers to the physical and corporeal connection between persons sprung from a common father. In all these cases the 0. T. only uses the word flesh in the physical and metaphysical senses.’

II. New Testament.-These senses of the word "flesh" are also found in the N.T.

(1.) As a same for the body, the exterior appearance of humanity, it easily passes on also to denote external phenomena in general, as opposed to what is inner and spiritual. So, when Christ says to the Jews, "I judge not after the flesh," he means "the flesh is the rule by which you judge" ’(Joh 7:15; compare also Php 3:3; 2Co 5:16). In Rom 4:1, the ethical sense appears. The word "flesh" here denotes man’s incapacity for good apart from divine aid. This impotence, both practical and spiritual is also expressed in other passages, as ins Rom 6:19; Mat 16:17; and in Mat 26:41, where the lower, earthly and sensual element in humanity, as opposed to the "spirit," is, as such, incapable of bearing trial and temptation. The root of this weakness is in dwelling in the flesh (Rom 7:18; Rom 16:20), by which man is divided within himself as well as separated from God, inasmuch as he -has, on the one side, the self-conscious spirit (νοῦς), which submits to the divine law, and takes pleasure in this obedience, desiring all that is commanded, and avoiding all that is forbidden; and, on the other hand, thee flesh, which, being inhabited by sin, seeks only for the lower satisfactions, thus inclining to evil rather than good, and opposed to thee divine law (see Rom 7:7-25; Rom 8:3). The "sinful flesh" (σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας) hinders the efficacy’ of the divine law, so that, although it (the law) gains the assent of the "inner man," it is not fulfilled, because of this tendency of the flesh towards what is forbidden. Hence the " being in the flesh" means. in fact, such activity of the sinful passions (παθήματα ἁμαρτιῶν) of the organism (ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν) as results in death (Rom 8:8-9). To live and act " according to the flesh" is to live and act sin-fully; the "carnal mind is enmity against God" (Rom 8:4-5; Rom 8:7; Rom 8:12).

The "wisdom according to the flesh" is a mistaken, Godless wisdom (1Co 1:26). All efforts, boasts, etc., having the flesh for object or for motive (βουλεύεσθαι στρατεύεσθαι, καυχᾶσθαι κατὰ σάρκα, 2Co 1:17; 2Co 10:2; 2Co 11:18), are foreign- to the life of the true Christian. The lusts, desires, and works of the flesh are sinful, and opposed to holy, divine impulses and actions (Gal 5:16; Eph 2:3). To crucify the flesh and the works of the flesh is the great object of the Christian, which he attains through the power of the spirit of Christ which dwells in him (Gal 5:25; Rom 8:11). The fleshly mind is the mistaken mind, leading away from Christ to pride, and consequently to error (Col 2:18-19). Finally, to act according to the flesh is called to " be sold under sin" (Rom 7:12; comp. 1Jn 2:16; Rom 8:3). But "flesh" does not always denote sinfulness (see Rom 1:3; Rom 9:5; 1Ti 3:16; Joh 1:14). The flesh, in Christ, was not sinful; God sent him only " in the likeness of sinful flesh" (έν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, Rom 8:3). This sinless flesh, as the organ of the ’Word of life, contains the divine life, which is communicated to, men also living in the flesh, to redeem them from the death of sin, and to make them partakers of everlasting life (Joh 6:51).

We see, then, that the meaning of the word flesh was, on the one hand, gradually extended from a physical to a metaphysical, and finally to an ethical senses In the ethical use in thee N.T., moreover, of the term "flesh," we do not find the idea of essential sin as lying in the flesh.. Flesh in itself is neither bad nor sinful. It is the living body the casket of the soul, containing within itself the interior and exterior organism of the senses, which, by its union with the spirit, conceives ideas, sensations, desires, and contains the so-called faculties of the soul with their divers functions. In the normal state, its whole activity is governed by the spirit, and in so far as the latter remains in unison with God from whom it proceeds, it is in turn governed by him. But sin, which disturbs this unison of the spirit with God, alters also the power of the spirit over the body. The ego oversteps the bounds of the divines life, moves no longer in harmony with the divine spirit, and, being no longer supported by the divine power, gradually becomes earthly and worldly, and all its functions partake of this character. The spirit endeavors, it is true, to bring the flesh under subjection to the higher laws, but does not succeed. It may, under the form of conscience, succeed in regaining some ground, but not in bringing back the state of abnegation and of detachment from the world, It is only through an immediate action on the part of God that the original relation of the flesh to the spirit is restored, the lost power regained, and the flesh brought back to its normal condition (And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, fell of grace and truth, John i, 14).

The original source of sin in man is neither to be found in the spirit, the organ of God’s revelation within us, nor in the flesh, which is in turn the physical organ of the spirit. According to Scripture, it is the heart, the centre of our personality, in which all the influences, both godly and ungodly, meet-in which the choice between them is made. If the heart then gives entrance to sin, permits any doubt of God’s truth, any mistrust of his love and kindness, and thus lowers him to put self in his place (Genesis 3), the union between God and man ceases; the inner man loses his energy to govern the σάρξ; the flesh starts s-p in opposition to the divine commands in its feelings and its desires. It asserts its independence. Self is made the centre. Hence hatred, strife., desire for worldly superiority. creating envy, and giving rise to all the "lusts of the flesh." That both selfishness and sensualism have their seat in the σάρξ, and that the actions of men are guided by one or the other, is clearly shown in the enumeration given by the apostle of the works of the flesh (Gal 5:19), which are clearly the effects of selfishness and of sinful passions; and that the word flesh, as used by Paul, is intended to signify both, is proved by the apostle’s warning (Gal 5:13) not to use Christian liberty for "an occasion to the flesh," i.e. to satisfy the desires of the flesh, adding to it the recommendation " but by love serve one another." Whichever of the two is then especially alluded to when .he Scriptures, and especially St. Paul, speak of the nature, the life, or the works of the flesh, the context will show. Sometimes. both are equally active, sometimes the one only to the exclusion of the other. This is the only way in which we can arrive at a true appreciation of the meaning in each case. Those interpreters who, in view of the substitution of σάρξ for σῶμα and μέλη, consider it as meaning exclusively the bodily, sinful side of human nature, fall into the errors of the Manichoeans. See Tholuck, Erneute Untersuchung i. σάρξ als Quelle d. Siinde (Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1855, 3); Stirm, i. d. Tiib. Zeitschr. 1834 (i. d. n. t. Anthropol.); Neander, Planting and Training, vol. ii; Kling, in Herzog. Rerl-En2cyklopddie; Campbell, On Four Gospels, diss. i, § 2.

σάρξ. This term is used in various senses in scripture. The principal are

1. The estate of man: "all flesh shall see the salvation of God," Luk 3:6; "the Word became flesh." Joh 1:14.

2. The material part of man and of animals: "all flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts." 1Co 15:39.

3. The same kindred: "thou art my bone and my flesh," Gen 29:14; "he is our brother, and our flesh." Gen 37:27.

4. Union: "they shall be one flesh," Gen 2:24; Eph 5:29-31.

5. Man’s nature, but corrupted by sin: "that which is born of the flesh is flesh," Joh 3:6; "sinful flesh," Rom 8:3.

6. The state which characterises man before knowing deliverance: Rom. 7, Rom 8:8-9.

7. Though no longer the state of the Christian, yet the flesh is in him, and is antagonistic to the Spirit, "the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye should not do the things that ye would." Gal 5:17. Thus the Spirit resists in the Christian the accomplishment of the lusts of the flesh.

Abstaining From The Lusts Of The Flesh

Rom_13:14; 1Pe_2:11.

All Flesh Not Being The Same

1Co_15:39-40.

Fleshly Lusts

1Pe_2:11; 1Jn_2:16.

That Which Is Born Of The Flesh

Joh_3:6.

The Flesh

Job_34:15; Psa_73:26; Isa_40:6-8; Mat_26:41; Mar_14:38; Joh_6:63; Rom_7:25; Gal_5:16-21; 1Pe_1:24.

The Life Of The Flesh

Gen_9:4; Lev_17:11; Pro_14:30.

The Reward For Living After The Flesh

Rom_8:13.

The Son Of GOD (Jesus Christ) Becoming Flesh

Joh_1:14; Gal_4:4; 1Ti_3:16; Heb_2:9-14.

Those That Walk After The Flesh

Rom_8:5-8; 2Pe_2:10-11.

Those That Eat The Flesh Of Christ

Joh_6:53-58.

Those That Sow To Their Flesh

Gal_6:8.

What Dwells In The Flesh

Rom_7:17-23.

What Is Flesh

Joh_3:6.

What Should Not Be Done To Your Flesh

Lev_19:28.

Who Defiles The Flesh

Jud_1:7-8.

Who Does Not Walk After The Flesh

Rom_8:1; Rom_8:9.

Who Has No Confidence In The Flesh

Php_3:3-4.

Who Has Crucified The Flesh

Gal_5:24.

FLESH (σάρξ).—In every instance where this word is used by the Evangelists we observe that it is confined in its reference to the human race. The same remark, it may be noticed, holds good of the NT writers as a whole (cf., however, 1Co 15:39, and the plural σάρκας of Rev 19:18). The particular conception attaching to it varies in different contexts to a slight extent, though in almost every case a distinction or contrast is either stated or implied which has its roots in OT thought. It is interesting to remark that this is a word employed very rarely by St. Luke in either of his writings; and even when he does use it, we find that, for the most part, he is quoting from the OT (see Luk 3:6 = Isa 40:5 [LXX Septuagint ], where in conjunction with πᾶσα it is simply a synonym for all mankind; cf. Mat 24:22, Mar 13:20, Joh 17:2, and Act 2:17). The reference, of course, is to the human race in its present condition of weakness and need of help, as contrasted with the power and the active love of God (cf. Deu 5:26, Psa 56:4 [55:5 LXX Septuagint ]).

In the only other place where the word is found in St. Luke’s Gospel (Luk 24:39) we have it used simply to denote the substance flesh considered as a constituent of the human body. The risen Jesus is represented as inviting His disciples to assure themselves by touching Him that He had risen not merely in a spiritual, but in a corporeal sense. The antithesis is that of ‘spirit’ and ‘body’ (πνεῦμα and σῶμα), the latter consisting of ‘flesh’ and ‘bones’ (σάρξ and ὀστέα). See art. Body.

A still more emphatic expression signifying the distinction between man and God is found in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Mat 16:17), where σάρξ is joined with αἶμα to denote man in his present condition of spiritual limitation and of defective knowledge. A somewhat similar antithesis is incidentally, albeit elaborately, pointed out by St. John (Joh 1:13), who, in his reference to the new life communicated through Christ to believers, lays stress on the fact that this higher life is not the result of human birth, whether the latter be considered as the outcome of a long line of descent (ἐξ αἱμάτων), or as springing from natural instinct inherent in the flesh (ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός), or even as the resultant of the will power resident in the entire man (ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός). Their infused life has its roots in Him who is the source of all life (… ἀλλʼ ἐκ θεοῦ ἑγεννήθησαν), and is conditioned in every instance by their reception of the Word made flesh (ὃσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, see Westcott, Gospel of St. John, ad loc., who notices a very early variant reading which would make ‘the Word’ the subject of the whole verse).

Another form of this antithetic relationship occurs in the same writing. In His conversation with Nicodemus Jesus draws attention to the limitations which surround the functions of man’s nature considered on its sensuous side (ἐκ τῆς σαρκός), and those of the Spirit which finds scope for activity within another sphere of human life (ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος). It is not the antithesis of evil and good that is here referred to. It is simply that within the realm of man’s being there are two principles of energy which take their origin from two orders of existence. The law of nature which compels like to produce like holds good in man’s complex life, and so ‘What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit’ (Joh 3:6). With this we may compare another passage in the same Gospel where this idea is expressed in language more explicit still and as emphatic (Joh 6:63). The contrast here between spirit, which not only has life in itself but can communicate that life as it wills (τὸ ζωοποιοῦν), and flesh, which ‘is of no avail’ above its own sphere (ἡ σἀρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδὲν), is categorically asserted.

So, too, on another occasion when engaged in controversy with the Pharisees, Jesus contrasts their method of judging with His own patience in that respect, and in so doing implies a further contrast—their imperfect and therefore incorrect judgment (κατὰ τὴν σάρκα) which is based on a superficial knowledge, and His just judgment which comes from His ‘knowledge of all the circumstances, and aspects, and issues of life’ (ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ ἀληθινή ἐστιν, Joh 8:15 f.; see Westcott, Gospel of St. John, ad loc.).

Arising out of this conception we have the word employed to mark a psychological distinction between man’s flesh and spirit. So real was this distinction to the mind of Jesus that we can almost hear in His words (Mat 26:41 = Mar 14:38) the echo of personal experience (… γρηγορῆσαι μετʼ ἐμοῦ … τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής). In this place we may also notice that there was something present in the struggle engaged in by the disciples which was absent in the case of Jesus. They were unsuccessful in their efforts to ‘watch,’ because not only was their flesh ‘weak,’ but it had also to contend with an element of discord which further distracted their power for unremitting watchfulness. With Him was also present the flesh of weakness (see 2Co 13:4 ἐξ ἀσθενείας), but the relationship between His σάρξ and πνευμα was not perverted by the indwelling presence of sin, or by the downward tendency inherited as the result of sin.

On one occasion Jesus quotes with approval the translation of the LXX Septuagint (Gen 2:24) where the word σάρξ occurs meaning the entire man (Mat 19:5 f. = Mar 10:8), and that without any qualifying word. It would be a colourless interpretation of Jesus’ words which would limit His teaching on the marriage relationship to a physical oneness following on and produced by the sexual union. The Hebraistic ἔσονται εἰς (Heb. וְהָיוּ לְ) implies a gradual movement from a physical union to a higher and more complex unity, so that where two separate beings formerly existed there is now but one (ὤστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο, ἀλλὰ σὰρξ μία, which is Jesus’ inference from the Heb. לְבִשִׂר אָהִד; see art. Eunuch). It is because of the ultimately complete and spiritual character of this union that the sin which dissolves it and the human legislation which seeks to render it nugatory assume their dark proportions (cf. Gould, ‘St. Mark’ in Internat. Crit. Com. on Mar 10:8 f.).

Passing from the Synoptic to the Johannine use of this word, we find it clothing conceptions which are fuller and richer. In the simple but majestic sentence in which he announces the profound mystery of the Incarnation, St. John employs the word ‘flesh’ to express the totality of human nature, looked at on the side of its manifold limitations, that is to say, as it touches and is connected with the world of matter and of time (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, Joh 1:14, with which we may compare the positive references to ‘the soul’ and ‘the spirit’ of Jesus in the same writing, e.g. Joh 12:27 ἠ ψυχή μου, Joh 13:21 τῷ πνεύματι, etc.). The phrase ‘the Word became flesh’ implies the existence of an antithesis which has been reduced in its elements to a final and permanent synthesis. The Johannine conception leaves no room for doubt as to the perfection of the human nature of Jesus, which is universal both as regards time and race.

Keeping in mind this usage, we shall be enabled to apprehend more fully the thought underlying the language of Jesus about His power of imparting Himself in His perfect humanity (cf. Joh 6:51-56). His ‘flesh,’ by virtue of its union with His Divine Personality, is ‘living’ (ὁ ζῶν) food, and therefore possesses the power of communicating its life to all who will eat thereof (ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα, κ.τ.λ.). Without this participation and consequent assimilation on the part of His followers, there can be no such thing as ‘life’ within them, for they deliberately reject what contains for them the germinal principle of that ‘life’ (οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἐαυτοῖς).

The question may be asked whether it is possible to trace any likeness or fundamental connexion between the Gospel and the Pauline uses of σάρξ. In St. Paul’s writings very marked emphasis is laid upon this word, and for him it clothes a conception rich with ethical significance. The ‘flesh’ is the present abode of sin, which requires an obedient subject to execute its behests. So closely does he connect the power of sin with the existing weakness of the flesh that he does not hesitate to say from his own experience ‘I know that in … my flesh dwelleth no good thing’ (Rom 7:18). At the same time, he is careful to point out that this is not the state appointed for man by God. The ‘crucifixion’ of the flesh is possible for every man who wills to walk not ‘according to the flesh’ but ‘according to the Spirit’ (οἱ … τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν, κ.τ.λ., Gal 5:24, cf. Rom 8:4 f.), and those who have the indwelling presence of the Spirit are no longer in the flesh (ἐν σαρκί) but in the Spirit (ἐν πνεύματι, Rom 8:9). With these we may compare such expressions as ‘the mind of the flesh’ (φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός) and ‘the mind of the Spirit’ (φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος, Rom 8:6; ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκός, Col 2:18), from which we can gather how present to St. Paul’s mind was the connexion between sin and the flesh, and at the same time how strong within him was the glorious hope that such connexion in the ultimate result was abnormal and destined for destruction. There is no sign in the Pauline terminology that he was influenced in his theological conceptions by the spirit of that Greek dualism which wormed its way into subsequent Christian thought with lasting and for the most part evil consequences (see Müller, Christian Doct. of Sin, i. 320 ff.).

The redemption and the quickening of the body (… τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος, Rom 8:23; … ζωοποιήσει τὰ θνητὰ σώματα, Rom 8:11; cf. Rom 6:12, 2Co 4:11) are features essential to the scheme of salvation as outlined and systematized by St. Paul. The condemnation of sin ‘in the flesh’ by God, who for this purpose sent His Son ‘in the likeness of the flesh of sin’ (Rom 8:3), is evidence that there is, for him, no naturally essential connexion between the flesh and evil.

We are not without signs that this is just the point of view from which the Evangelists looked at this question (cf. Joh 1:14; Joh 17:2, Luk 3:6; Luk 11:34 = Mat 6:22), and that neither they nor the Apostle of the Gentiles were touched by that false belief which identified sin with matter, and, therefore, with ‘the body of the flesh’ (cf. Col 1:22; Col 2:11). The anthropology of the Gospels, as well as the psychological conceptions which emerge but rarely and incidentally from their pages, are essentially Hebrew, and are never stained by the potential immoralities which characterized the later Alexandrian and Hellenistic theology.

Literature.—Stevens, The Theology of the NT, pp. 189 f., 338 ff.; Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, i. 53–224, iii. 183, 255 ff., etc.; H. H. Wendt, Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist; Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man, and his artt. ‘Psychology’ and ‘Flesh’ in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ; Weiss, Biblical Theology of the NT, § 27; Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Lex. of NT Greek, s.v. σάρξ.

J. R. Willis.

():

By: Emil G. Hirsch

The soft portions of the animal body, internally connected with the skeleton of bones and externally enclosed by the skin (Gen. ii. 21; Job x. 11). Flesh is an article of food (Dan. vii. 5), generally roasted over the fire or boiled (I Sam. ii. 13, 15). The word is also applied to the flesh of birds (Num. xi. 33). Otherwise, the Hebrew has, usually the word (Ex. xxi. 10; Ps. lxxviii. 20, 27). In a graphic description of the oppressive tactics of the powerful, Micah charges them with eating the flesh () of the people, preparing it "as flesh [] for the caldron" (Micah iii. 2-3, Hebr.). Eating of flesh with the blood in it was associated with a riotous, gluttonous disposition (Prov. xxiii. 20). A familiar but terrible menace is that one's flesh shall be given over to the birds to eat (Gen. xl. 19; I Sam. xvii. 44; Ezek. xxxii. 5).

In an enlarged sense, "flesh" assumes the meaning of "body" (Ex. iv. 7; Lev. xiv. 9, xix. 28; II Kings vi. 30; Zech. xiv. 12) or of parts of it (Lev. vi. 10; Ezek. xliv.7). Employed figuratively, "flesh," soft and impressionable, is contrasted with "stone," hard and unyielding ("stony heart" as against "heart of flesh": Ezek. xxxvi. 26).

As the corruptible and weak part of the body, "flesh" expresses weakness, as against "spirit," which indicates strength (Isa. xxxi. 3); in Job vi. 12 it is similarly contrasted with "brass." Thence also its use as designating "man" (Jer. xvii. 5; Ps. lxxviii. 39), especially in the phrase "all flesh" for "all mankind" (Gen. vi. 12-13 [A. V. "every living thing"], vi. 19, vii. 21; Num. xvi. 22; Job xxxiv. 15; Ps. lxv. 2, cxxxvi. 25; "All flesh is grass," Isa. xl. 6; "the God of all flesh," Jer. xxxii. 27). "Flesh," therefore, denotes also a person; "my flesh"= "I" (Ps. xvi. 9, lxiii. 2); one's whole being is expressed by "my heart and my flesh" (Ps. lxxxiv. 3).

The original meaning of "flesh"—clan—underlies its use in Adam's welcome to Eve and in the designation of husband and wife as "one flesh" (Gen. ii. 23-25). It is probable, if the correct reading were given in the other parts of the passage, that in Job xix. 26 "in my flesh" would be found to have this meaning: His "go'el" (blood-avenger) even now liveth; from his own clan will he arise. Not to "withhold thyself from thine own flesh" (Isa. lviii. 7) expresses, therefore, the obligation to help one's fellow man. In Ecclesiastes "flesh" carries the implication of carnal appetite, as the sensual part of man's being (Eccl. xii. 12), a use very general in the New Testament. "Take my flesh in my teeth" (Job xiii. 14) is an idiomatic equivalent for running dangerous risks.

The word is explained by the Talmudists as composed of the initials ב = "shame"; ש=ם = or , "corruption" or "Sheol"; ד= , "worm" (Sotṭah 5a), an opinion which reflects a certain theological leaning toward the Pauline view of the sinfulness of the flesh (Rom. viii. 1; Col. ii. 11). Judaism knows nothing of the "mortification of the flesh" (see Abstinence; Asceticism; Body); the vows of castigation are called "nidre 'innui hanefesh," not "ha-basar" (Yer. Ned. xi. 42c). The "mortifications" on Yom ha-Kippurim consist inabstaining from eating and drinking, washing, ointments, shoes, and cohabitation (Yoma 76a). "Flesh and fish" represents substantial food as against a vegetable diet (Shab. 140b; compare the English expression "neither flesh, fowl, nor fish," or the German "weder Fisch noch Fleisch").

FLESH.—This word is used in Scripture to express: (1) the substance of the animal body, whether of man or of beast (Gen 41:2). (2) The whole human body (Exo 4:7). (3) Relationship by birth or marriage (Gen 2:24; Gen 37:27, Neh 5:5), for which also the further phrase ‘flesh and bones’ is found (Gen 2:23, 2Sa 19:12)—a phrase which is also used to describe the reality of the humanity of Jesus after His resurrection (Luk 24:39). (4) The finite earthly creature, in contrast with God and His Spirit (Isa 31:3, Gen 7:21)—a use of the term to emphasize man’s frailty and dependence on God (Job 34:15, Isa 40:6-8), but without any moral disparagement, as it is applied to the whole human race without reference to its sin (Joe 2:28), and to the human nature of Christ (Joh 1:14, Rom 1:3). We have the equivalent phrase ‘flesh and blood’ in the NT (1Co 15:50 ||‘corruption,’ Heb 2:14 = human nature [cf. Joh 1:13]). (5) One element of the nature of man in combination or contrast with the others, such as ‘soul’ (Psa 63:1), ‘heart’ (Psa 73:26), ‘soul’ and ‘heart’ (Psa 84:2); while it is the lower element, it is recognized even in man’s relation to God (Job 19:26). In the NT ‘flesh’ is, without suggestion or moral defect, either combined or contrasted with ‘spirit’ (Mat 26:41, 1Co 5:5). As a necessary element in human nature under present conditions, it is in no way condemned (Gal 2:20); the duality is ascribed to Christ Himself (Rom 1:3-4); and sin is represented as infecting the other elements in man as well as the body (2Co 7:1, Eph 2:3). (6) The seat and vehicle of sin, as contrasted with the ‘mind’ which approves and serves the law of God (Rom 7:25), and the ‘spirit’ which is the gift of God (Rom 8:4 ff., Gal 5:16. A similar use is made of the adjective ‘fleshly’ or ‘carnal,’ in contrast with ‘spiritual’ (Rom 7:14, 1Co 3:1, Col 2:18). It is to be noted, however, that in this use the ‘flesh’ is not conceived as exclusively material substance, for among the works of the flesh are included idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strifes, jealousies, etc. (Gal 5:20). The explanation usually given of this use of the term ‘flesh’ is that, man having fallen, sin comes by natural inheritance (flesh), whereas goodness is given by supernatural grace (spirit). Whatever be the explanation of the Pauline use, that the term gets a distinctly ethical content, and is used with reference to sin as dwelling in human nature, cannot be denied.

Pfleiderer endeavours to show how from the Hebraic use of the term for creaturely weakness, St. Paul passed to the Hellenic use for moral defect. His conclusion is that ‘from the opposition of physically different substances results the dualism of antagonistic moral principles’ (Paulinism, i. p. 54). The usual explanation of the depravity of human nature is rejected—‘there seems to be no allusion,’ says Usteri, quoted by Pfleiderer (p. 61), ‘in the writings of Paul to a change in the moral nature of man, or of his bodily constitution in consequence of the fall, i.e. of the first actual sin of Adam.’ St. Paul is supposed to leave us with two explanations of the origin of sin. Against the assumption of this dualism Bruce offers the following arguments: (1) It is un-Hebrew, and St. Paul’s culture is Rabbinic rather than Hellenistic; (2) the body is capable of sanctification as well as the spirit (1Th 5:23, 1Co 6:19-20, 2Co 7:1); (3) the body as well as the soul will be raised from the dead, although it will be changed (1Co 15:44-50); (4) the Christian salvation is in the present life, and not only after the death of the body (St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity, 269 ff.). It may be added that flesh is ascribed to Christ, and St. Paul’s phrase ‘the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Rom 8:3) is intended to deny sinfulness, not a similar body in Christ (see Comm. in loc.).

Alfred E. Garvie.

@בּשׂר, bāsār, שׁאר, sh^e’ēr):

1. Etymology

Used in all senses of the word, the latter, however, most frequently in the sense of kin, family, relationship (compare שׁארה, sha’ărāh, “kins-woman,” Lev 18:17): Lev 18:6; Lev 25:49; Pro 11:17; Jer 51:35, and probably Psa 73:26. In all other places sh^e’ēr means “flesh” = body (Pro 5:11) or = food (Psa 78:20, Psa 78:27; Mic 3:2, Mic 3:3). טבחה, tibhḥāh, is “(slaughtered) flesh for food,” “butcher’s meat” (1Sa 25:11). The word אשׁפר, ’eshpār, found only in two parallel passages (2Sa 6:19 = 1Ch 16:3), is of very uncertain meaning. The English versions translate it with “a good piece (portion) of flesh,” the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 ad) with “a piece of roast meat,” others with “a portion of flesh” and “a measure of wine.” It probably means simply “a measured portion.” לחם, לחוּם, laḥum, literally, “eaten,” then food (compare לחם, leḥem, “bread”), has been rarely specialized as flesh or meat (compare Arabic laḥm, “meat,” “flesh,” so in Zep 1:17, where it stands in parallelism with “blood”). The Greek terms are σάρξ, sárx, and κρέας, kréas, the latter always meaning “butcher’s meat” (Rom 14:21; 1Co 8:13).

We can distinguish the following varieties of meaning in Biblical language:

2. Ordinary Sense

In a physical sense, the chief substance of the animal body, whether used for food and sacrifice, or not; also the flesh of man (Gen 2:21; Exo 21:10 m; Isa 31:3; Eze 23:20; 1Co 15:39; Rev 19:18, Rev 19:21).

3. The Body

The whole body. This meaning is the extension of the preceding (pars pro toto). This is indicated by the Septuagint, where bāsār is often translated by the plural ἁι σάρκες, hai sárkes (Gen 40:19; Num 12:12; Job 33:25), and occasionally by σῶμα, sō̇ma, i.e. “body” (Lev 15:2; 1Ki 21:27). This meaning is also very clear in passages like the following: Exo 4:7; Lev 17:14; Num 8:7; 2Ki 4:34; Pro 5:11, where bāsār and sh^e’ēr are combined; and Pro 14:30; Ecc 12:12.

4. The Term “All Flesh”

Flesh, as the common term for living things, animals and men, especially the latter (Gen 6:13, Gen 6:17, Gen 6:19; Num 16:22; Jer 12:12; Mar 13:20); often in the phrase “all flesh” (Psa 65:2; Isa 40:5, Isa 40:6; Jer 25:31; Eze 20:48; Joe 2:28; Luk 3:6).

5. As Opposed to the Spirit

Flesh as opposed to the spirit, both of which were comprised in the preceding meaning (Gen 6:3; Psa 16:9; Luk 24:39, where “flesh and bones” are combined; Joh 6:63). Thus we find in Joh 1:14, “The Word became flesh”; 1Ti 3:16, “He who was manifested in the flesh”; 1Jn 4:2, and all passages where the incarnation of Christ is spoken of. The word in this sense approaches the meaning of “earthly life,” as in Php 1:22, Php 1:24, “to live in the flesh,” “to abide in the flesh”; compare Phm 1:16 and perhaps 2Co 5:16. Under this meaning we may enumerate expressions such as “arm of flesh” (2Ch 32:8; Jer 17:5), “eyes of flesh” (Job 10:4), etc. Frequently the distinction is made to emphasize the weakness or inferiority of the flesh, as opposed to the superiority of the spirit (Isa 31:3; Mat 26:41; Mar 14:38; Rom 6:19). In this connection we mention also the expression “flesh and blood,” a phrase borrowed from rabbinical writings and phraseology (see also Sirach 14:18, “the generation of flesh and blood,” and 17:31, “man whose desire is flesh and blood” the King James Version). The expression does not convey, as some have supposed, the idea of inherent sinfulness of the flesh (a doctrine borrowed by Gnostic teachers from oriental sources), but merely the idea of ignorance and frailty in comparison with the possibilities of spiritual nature. The capabilities of our earthly constitution do not suffice to reveal unto us heavenly truths; these must always come to us from above. So Peter’s first recognition of the Divine sonship of Jesus did not proceed from a logical conviction based upon outward facts acting upon his mind, but was based upon a revelation from God vouchsafed to his inner consciousness. Christ says therefore to him: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mat 16:17). Similarly the kingdom of God, being a realm of perfect spiritual submission to God, cannot be inherited by flesh and blood (1Co 15:50), nor was the richly endowed mind a competent tribunal to which Paul could refer his heaven-wrought conviction of his great salvation and the high calling to be a witness and apostle of Christ, so he did well that he “conferred not with flesh and blood” (Gal 1:16). That “flesh and blood” does not imply a sense of inherent sinfulness is moreover shown in all passages where Christ is declared a partaker of such nature (Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14, where, however, we find in the original text the inverted phrase “blood and flesh”).

6. Applied to the Carnal Nature

Flesh in the sense of carnal nature (σάρκικος, sárkikos, “carnal”; the King James Version uses sarkinós in Rom 7:14). Human nature, being inferior to the spiritual, is to be in subjection to it. If man refuses to be under this higher law, and as a free agent permits the lower nature to gain an ascendancy over the spirit, the “flesh” becomes a revolting force (Gen 6:3, Gen 6:12; Joh 1:13; Rom 7:14; 1Co 3:1, 1Co 3:3; Col 2:18; 1Jn 2:16). Thus, the fleshly or carnal mind, i.e. a mind in subjection to carnal nature, is opposed to the Divine spirit, who alone is a sufficient corrective, Christ having secured for us the power of overcoming (Rom 8:3), if we manifest a deep desire and an earnest endeavor to overcome (Gal 5:17, Gal 5:18).

7. In the Sense of Relationship

Flesh in the sense of relationship, tribal connection, kith and kin. For examples, see what has been said above on Hebrew sh^e’ēř. The following passages are a few of those in which bāsār is used: Gen 2:24; Gen 37:27; Job 2:5; compare the New Testament passages: Mat 19:5, Mat 19:6; Rom 1:3; Rom 9:3, Rom 9:5, Rom 9:8. The expressions “bone” and “flesh” are found in combination (Gen 2:23; Gen 29:14; Jdg 9:2; 2Sa 5:1; 2Sa 19:12, 2Sa 19:13; Eph 5:31, the latter in some manuscripts only).

8. Other Meanings

Some other subdivisions of meanings might be added, for example where “flesh” takes almost the place of “person,” as in Col 2:1: “as many as have not seen my face in the flesh,” i.e. have not known me personally, or Col 2:5, “absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit,” etc.

(óÜñî, êñÝáò)

Of the two words rendered ‘flesh’ in the English Version of the NT, êñÝáò is found only twice (Rom_14:21, 1Co_8:13), and in both cases applies to the flesh of slaughtered animals eaten as food. óÜñî occurs very frequently and in various significations, of which the following are the most important.

1. Its most literal and primary meaning is the soft tissues of the living body, whether of men or beasts (1Co_15:39, Rev_19:18), as distinguished from both the blood (1Co_15:50) and the bones (Eph_5:30 TR [Note: Textus Receptus, Received Text.] ; cf. Luk_24:39).

2. As the chief constituent of the body, and that which gives it its visible form, ‘flesh’ frequently indicates the whole body (Gal_4:13 f.), which it designates, however, not as an organism (óῶìá, 1Co_12:12), but with reference to its characteristic material substance (2Co_12:7).

3. It is further employed, just as in the OT (Gen_29:14; Gen_37:27), to denote relationship due to natural origin through the physical fact of generation. Thus St. Paul describes Jesus Christ as ‘born of the seed of David according to the flesh’ (Rom_1:3), and refers to the Jewish people as ‘my kinsmen according to the flesh’ (Rom_9:3), or even as ‘my flesh’ (Rom_11:14). Similarly be calls Abraham ‘our forefather according to the flesh’ (Rom_4:1), and the author of Heb. characterizes natural fathers as ‘the fathers of our flesh’ in contrast with God as ‘the Father of spirits’ (Heb_12:9).

4. Again óÜñî is used, in the same way as óῶìá, to designate the lower part of human nature in contrast with the higher part, without any depreciation of the corporeal element being thereby intended. Thus ‘flesh’ is combined or contrasted with ‘spirit’ (Rom_2:28-29, 1Co_5:5, 1Pe_3:18), as ‘body’ is with ‘soul’ (Mat_10:28) or ‘spirit’ (1Co_6:20, Jam_2:26), apart from any idea of disparagement, and only by way of indicating the fact that man is a unity of matter and spirit, of a lower part which links him to the outer world of Nature and a higher part which brings him into relation with God, both of them being essential to the completeness of his personality (1Co_6:19-20, 2Co_5:1-4).

5. In many instances ‘flesh’ assumes a broader meaning, being employed to denote human nature generally, usually, however, with a suggestion of its creaturely frailty and weakness in contrast with God Himself, or His Spirit, or His word. ‘All flesh’ (Act_2:17, 1Pe_1:24) is equivalent to all mankind; ‘no flesh’ (Rom_3:20, 1Co_1:29, Gal_2:16) has the force of ‘no mortal man.’ Similar to this is the use of the fuller expression ‘flesh and blood,’ as when St. Paul says that he ‘conferred not with flesh and blood’ (Gal_1:16), and that ‘our wrestling is not against flesh and blood’ (Eph_6:12). That this use of ‘flesh,’ although pointing to human weakness, is free from any idea of moral taint, is sufficiently shown by the fact that it is employed to describe the human nature of Christ Himself (Joh_1:14, Rom_1:3; Rom_9:5, 1Ti_3:16, Heb_2:14) by writers who are absolutely convinced of His sinlessness (Joh_8:46, 1Jn_3:5, 2Co_5:21, Heb_4:15; Heb_7:26).

6. In Heb. we have a special use of ‘flesh’ to designate earthly existence-a use which must be distinguished from those that have been already dealt with. ‘In the days of his flesh’ (Heb_5:7) does not mean in the days when He possessed a body, or in the days when He bore our human nature; for the author firmly believes in the continued and complete humanity of our heavenly High Priest (Heb_4:14 f.). It evidently means in the days when He lived upon earth as a man amongst men. Similarly, ‘through The veil, that is to say, his flesh’ (Heb_10:20) points to His life in those same ‘days of his flesh’-the whole period of His suffering humanity; and when the writer describes the rites of the OT Law as ‘ordinances of flesh’ (äéêáéþìáôá óáñêüò, English Version ‘carnal ordinances,’ Heb_9:10) and contrasts these with the blood of Christ in respect of atoning efficacy, the antithesis in his mind, as the context shows, is not so much between the material and the spiritual as between the earthly and the heavenly, the passing and the permanent, the temporal and the eternal. In the same way he draws a contrast between ‘the law of a carnal (óáñêßíçò) commandment’ and ‘the power of an endless life’ (Heb_7:16).

7. In addition to the foregoing, which may all be characterized as natural meanings of ‘flesh,’ we find the word used by St. Paul in a distinctly theological and ethical sense to denote the seat and instrument of sin in fallen humanity, as opposed to the ‘mind,’ or higher nature of man, which accepts the Law of God (Rom_7:25), and the ‘spirit,’ which is the principle of life in the regenerate (Rom_8:4 ff., Gal_5:16 ff; Gal_6:8). In precisely the same way he employs the adj. ‘fleshly’ or ‘carnal’ in contrast with ‘spiritual’ (Rom_7:14, 1Co_3:1, etc.; see, further, Carnal). Pfleiderer and others have sought to explain this peculiar usage by supposing that in the Pauline anthropology there was a fundamental dualism between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit,’ and that the Apostle saw in the physical or sensuous part of man the very source and principle of sin. Such a view, however, is contrary to St. Paul’s thoroughly Hebrew conception of the unity of body and soul in the human personality (see 4), and is expressly negatived by his teaching on such subjects as the sinlessness of Jesus (2Co_5:21) and the sanctification of the body (1Co_6:15; 1Co_6:19), and by his application of the epithet ‘carnal’ (1Co_3:3) and of the expression ‘works of the flesh’ (Gal_5:19 ff.) to sins in which any sensuous or physical elements are entirely wanting. The most probable explanation of this Pauline antithesis of ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ is that it amounts to a contrast between the natural and the supernatural. Sin in St. Paul’s presentation of it comes in the case of fallen man through natural inheritance-all mankind descending from Adam ‘by ordinary generation’-and is therefore characterized as ‘flesh’; while the life of holiness, as a gift of the Divine Spirit, is described as ‘spirit’ with reference to its source.

Literature.-H. Cremer, Lex. of NT Greek3 Edinburgh, 1880, s.v. óÜñî, and article ‘Fleisch’ in Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 3; H. H. Wendt, Die Begriffe Fleisch u. Geist im bibl. Sprachgebrauch, Gotha, 1878; J. Laidlaw, Bible Doct. of Man, new ed., Edinburgh, 1895, p. 109ff., and Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) ii. 14; W. P. Dickson, St. Paul’s Use of the Terms ‘Flesh’ and ‘Spirit,’ Glasgow, 1883; A. B. Bruce, St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity, Edinburgh, 1894, ch. xiv.

J. C. Lambert.

Psa 56:4 (a) By this figure human power is contrasted with divine power.

Psa 63:1 (b) David uses this expression to describe the longing of his soul for the fellowship of GOD, and to see GOD develop His purposes and plans.

Jer 17:5 (b) This figure refers to human power, man-made expedients and remedies, as well as the results of human effort in contrast with the deliverances that GOD prepared for His people.

Eze 16:26 (b) This term is used to express the great lustfulness of the Egyptians and also of the Israelites. Their immoral practices were the prime occupation of their lives. It represents the natural, evil human heart as in Eze 36:26).

Mat 16:17 (b) This term is used as a reference to the human mind, the educational values of the mind, and human religious reasonings.

Joh 1:13 (b) Salvation is not a decision on the part of a human being wherein with his mind he decides to become a Christian and step out of darkness into light. Salvation is of GOD, and only GOD can save by revealing Himself to the soul. No action of the person (the flesh) can give eternal life to a lost man.

Joh 3:6 (a) This refers to all that pertains to the human body. The body is never transformed, nor born again, nor converted. It remains "flesh" until it dies, or until the Lord returns in person to change our bodies.

Joh 6:52 (b) This expression occurs several times in this chapter. It refers to an appropriating of the Lord JESUS by faith so that the soul, the mind, and the heart are filled with His own lovely Person, and the heart is satisfied with Him. That interpretation which causes men to try to turn bread into the physical body of JESUS is utterly false, is an invention of the Devil, and is being used throughout the world to deceive the ungodly.

Rom 7:5 (a) This expression is used to describe those who do not have the Spirit of GOD, are not saved, and are called "sensual" in the book of Jude. Their flesh dominates their lives, and they are occupied with what they can see, hear, taste, smell and feel. (See Rom 8:8-9; 2Co 10:3).

Rom 8:12 (b) This is a type which describes the lusts, desires and affections created by the human body. (See also Rom 13:14; 2Co 10:2; Gal 5:13-17; Gal 6:8; Eph 2:3; 2Pe 2:10; Jud 1:23).

Eph 5:30 (a) This figure indicates that we are joined to CHRIST in a very real and eternal union by faith in Him.

Jas 5:3 (a) Probably this represents the remorse felt by a lost man because of a greedy and avaricious life.

Since flesh is an obvious feature of the human body, the word ‘flesh’ developed a figurative usage in relation to human life. This usage was not limited to the physical existence of human beings, for the life of human beings within the physical world is inseparable from their moral imperfection. Inevitably, ‘flesh’ developed new meanings in relation to certain spiritual characteristics that are shared by all people.

Physical life

Among the expressions that use ‘flesh’ in relation to the physical nature of human beings are ‘flesh and blood’, ‘flesh and bone’ and ‘flesh and heart’. These may mean no more than body, person, human life, the human race, or something similar (Gen 6:12; Job 2:5; Psa 73:26; Psa 78:39; Luk 3:6; Joh 1:14; Joh 8:15; 2Co 5:16; 2Co 12:7; Gal 1:16; Php 1:22-24; Heb 2:14; 1Pe 1:24). A man and a woman united in marriage become one flesh, and people related to each other share the same flesh (Gen 2:24; Gen 29:14; Rom 1:3; Rom 4:1; Rom 9:3; see also BODY).

On account of the usage of ‘flesh’ in reference to the physical aspect of human life, the word is sometimes contrasted with ‘spirit’, that inner and higher aspect of human life (Mat 26:41; 2Co 7:1; 1Pe 3:18; see SPIRIT). This physical life, however, has been corrupted through sin, and this gives ‘flesh’ its particular meaning in the writings of Paul. There it refers to sinful human nature (Rom 8:5; Eph 2:3).

Sinful human nature

The nature of men and women everywhere is infected by sin from birth. Adam, as the father and head of the human race, rebelled against God and corrupted human nature from the beginning. All human beings, because of their union with Adam, are born with this sinful nature (Psa 51:5; Rom 5:12; Rom 7:18; see SIN).

Human nature (the flesh) is directed and controlled by sin, and rebels against God’s law. It is incapable of being reformed and produces all the evil in the world. Like a deadly disease it cannot be cured, and leads only to moral decay and death (Rom 7:5; Rom 8:6-8; Gal 6:8; Col 2:23). The evil results of the flesh affect every part of human life and activity (Gal 5:19-21; cf. Mat 7:18).

Although Jesus was born with a human nature, his nature was not affected by sin. By living in complete obedience to God’s law, dying for sin and rising victoriously from the dead, he condemned the flesh, so that people might no longer be enslaved by it (Rom 8:3-4; Heb 2:14-15; Heb 4:15).

When sinners repent and trust in the saving power of Christ, they receive new life and freedom through the Spirit of Christ who comes to dwell within them. But the flesh is not destroyed. Believers still lives in a world where everything, even their own nature, suffers from the effects of sin. The original sinful human nature remains with them till the end of their present earthly existence, but through Christ they are now free from its power (Rom 6:14; Rom 6:18; Rom 8:1-2; Rom 8:10-12; see JUSTIFICATION).

Therefore, there is a continual conflict in the lives of believers, the flesh fighting against the Spirit (Rom 8:5; Gal 5:17). Before they trusted in Christ and became indwelt by the Spirit, the flesh had ruled them as a cruel master. If, now that they are believers, they readily give in to the flesh, it will soon bring them under its power again. In view of this, they must ensure that their behaviour is controlled and directed by the Spirit (Rom 6:12-18; Rom 8:4; Rom 8:13; 1Co 3:1-3; Gal 5:16). They have no obligation to the flesh; they owe it nothing. They must neither trust in it nor give it any opportunity to satisfy its evil desires (Rom 8:12; Rom 13:14; Php 3:3).

Christ has condemned the old nature by his crucifixion (Rom 6:6; Rom 8:3). Those who belong to Christ must accept this by faith and show it to be true by living according to the new nature (Rom 6:7-14; Gal 2:20; Gal 5:24; Eph 4:22; Eph 4:24; Col 2:11; Col 3:5-10; see REGENERATION; SANCTIFICATION).