A still more emphatic expression signifying the distinction between man and God is found in St. Matthew's Gospel (16"), where adp^ is joined with alfia 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 (1'^), 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 (^f alfj.dTup}, or as springing from natural instinct inherent in the flesh {^k 0(\ri/j.aToi aapK6s), or even as the resultant of the will power resident in the entire man {iK $e\ri/j.aTos duSpdi). Their infused life has its roots in Him who is the source of all life (. . . dXX' iK 8eoS eyan'rie-qaav), and is conditioned in every instance by their reception of the Word made flesh (oo-oi 5^ i\a§or airbv, 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 tliis 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 {iK riji <rapK6s), and those of the Spirit Avhich finds scope for activity within another sphere of human life {iK ToO irpeiifiaTos). 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 Ijoiii of the Spirit is spirit' (Jn 3"). With this we m.iy e'.iii[i,ii.- unother passage in the same Gospel win lu tlii-. idra is expressed in language more explicit still :uiil as emphatic (Jn 6*^). The contrast here Ijetwecii spirit, which not only has life in itself but can communicate that life as it wills {rd fwoTroiow), and flesh, which ' is of no avail' above its own sphere (7; aap^ ovk u0fXei oidii'), is categorically asserted.
So, too, on another occasion when engaged in con- troversy 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 tlierefore incorrect judgment {Kara. tt]p a-dpKa) 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' (^ Kplns ii i/xri oKrjSivii iariv, Jn 8"^'-; see Westcott, Gospel of St. John, ad loc. ).
Arising out of this conception we have the word employed to mark a psychological distinction be- tween man's flesh and spirit. So real was this dis- tinction to the mind of Jesus that we can almost hear in His words (Mt 26J' = Mk W) the echo of personal experience (. . . yp-qyopriaai. /xer' iij.ov . . . t6 fih TTvevna TrpdOvfj-of ?') di adpi d(T6>e^'7)s). In this place we may nlso notiee I hat there was sdiiietliiii^; present in the -1 rr.L-jle ,irja;jeil in l>y tli^' ili-eiplr- which was ali-eiil in 1 he ra>e iif .l.'sns. '['Iiey Mere unsuccessful in their ellorts to ■ watih,' b'eean-e not only was their flesh 'weak,' hut it had also to contend with an element of discord which further distracted their power for unremitting watchful- ness. With Him was also present the flesh of
coo
FLESH
FLIGHT
weakness (see 2 Co 13' t'J aaOcveia^), but the rela- tionsbii) between His aipi ami wvev/ia was not perverted by the indwelling presence of sin, or by the downward tendency inherited as tlie result of sin.
On one occasion Jesus quotes with approval the translation of the LXX (Gn 2-') where the word (Topf occurs meaning the entire man (Mt 19"'- =Mk 10"*), 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 (aovrai. (h (Heb. ^ vni) implies a gradual movement from a physical union to a higher and more com- plex unity, so that where two separate beings formerly existed there is now but one (lio-T-f ouk^ti (liriv Svo, o'XXa ffdpj fila, which is Jesus' inference from the Heb. -^n^y^h; see art. Eunuch). It is because of the ultimately complete and spiritual character of this union that the sin which dis- solves it and the human legislation which seeks to render it nugatory assume their dark propor- tions (cf. Gould, ' St. Mark ' in Intcrnat. Crit. Com. on Mk 10»'-).
Passing from the Sj'noptic 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 anil of time (6 X670S aap^ i-yii/ero, Jn l", with which we may compare the positive references to ' the soul ' and ' the spirit ' of Jesus in the same writing, e.g. 12^ ■i) ipvxh A""'> 13-' T(^ -iryevfian, 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 per- fection of the human nature of Jesus, which is universal both as regards time and race.