THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
This difficulty can not be solved by the perception that man himself as the subjective cause of such disposition may be designated as flesh because he is represented in it; for sarx does not in the Bible always mean man himself, but that which shapes him, his guiding principle (cf. Rom. vii. 14, with verses 18 and 25); this observation, however, leads to a correct understanding of the difficulty.
It is necessary to go back to the Old Testament basar, and especially to basar in the sense of sarx, in which it is used only of the flesh of man, while it is used in the sense of Areas only with regard to
animals (i.e., the flesh of sacrifice). In 2. The this special application to man basar Hebrew means in the first place the substance Basar. of the body. The bones or blood are
sometimes mentioned with flesh, as constituting the body (Luke xxiv. 39; I Cor. xv. 50). By synecdoche flesh is used for the body (Ps. xvi. 9; Cor. x. 3). This use of the term is a Hebrew idiom, foreign to the Greek; so that the Septuagint often translates the Hebrew basar by soma (" body ")• The expression " all flesh " is sometimes used for the race in its totality (Gen. vi. 17), but usually for the race as human (Gen. vi. 12; Luke hi. 6, etc.).
This leads to the peculiarity of the Biblical use of the word. It designates man because man appears through it, and manifests his nature by it; in the
flesh man has his life — he is flesh.
3. " Flesh " This attribute he shares with the Equivalent whole living universe. Flesh is the to "Man." condition and outward expression of
its existence; by the flesh it manifests its solidarity. Thus, as flesh, it is weak and frail (Ps. lxxviii. 39). Flesh is not spirit, nor vital power (Isa. xxxi. 3), but stands in living and moral contrast to spirit, the spirit of God (Deut. v. 26).
Thus in the Old Testament the term " flesh " connects itself with the conception of impotence, need of salvation, and sinfulness of man whose distinction from God is the distinction between flesh and spirit. The development of the term in the New Testament and especially in Paul may be traced directly to this Old Testament conception, while the development of the term in the synagogue was quite different.
The most significant traits of the Old Testament representation practically disappear in the Apocrypha. Sarx is spoken of as the substance of the human body (Sirach xix. 12, xliv. 20;
4. Jewish Judith xiv. 10 etc.). Pasa sarx oc- Usage. curs with the same meaning as in the
Old Testament (Sirach i. 8, xiii. 15; Judith ii. 3; etc.). But the idea of lowliness and frailty disappeared almost altogether, likewise the idea of distinction from God. The same may be said of the Pseudepigrapha and the remaining post-Biblical literature of the synagogue. Alexandrianism accepted the Old Testament meaning as little as did the theologians of the synagogue. The Septuagint perverted in important passages (Num. xvi. 22; Isa. xxxi. 3) the relation of spirit or God and flesh into the distinction between spirit and matter. Philo uses sarx in the sense of evil dis-
position. This is not a translation of Biblical views into Alexandrinian philosophy, but it is most clearly a translation of the synagogal view of the yezer ha-ra', the evil disposition, the disposition toward the sensual from which the real evil has proceeded.
On this account it is the more peculiar that the writers of the New Testament — Paul not excepted— have not built on this later foundation, but have gone back to the Old Testament. In the synoptic
Gospels and in Acts sarx designates
5. New the substance of the body (Luke
Testament xxiv. 39; Acts ii. 26, 31), man and
Usage. humanity (Matt. xix. 5, 6; Mark x. 8;
etc.). It denotes the distinction from God and that not in the physical sense, hence the incongruous relation of sarx to the divine principle of life in the heart of man (Matt. xxvi. 41; Mark xiv. 31 ). The writings of John and Peter, the Epistle of Jude, and the Epistle to the Hebrews do not add any essential features except that " flesh " also indicates the peculiarity of man's external nature. Thus it is opposed to pneuma, or spirit (Col. ii. 1, 5). In the writings of Peter the contrast between sarx and pneuma appears as a contrast of sarx and the spirit of God (I Pet. hi. 18), and as a contrast of sarx and the human pneuma (I Pet. iv. 6). The same contrast between God or the spirit of God and the flesh dominates the use of the word in the writings of John. Here the expression " The Word was made flesh " (John i. 14) has its force from the contrast with (verse 1) " The Word was God." The same contrast appears in Ps. lvi. 5, 2; Chron. xxxii. 8; II Cor. xiii. 4. Sarx in distinction from God and his spirit denotes frailty, helplessness, need of salvation.
The sinfulness of the flesh is emphasized by Paul (Rom. viii. 3). In this sense he calls the body " a body of the flesh " soma tes sarkos (Col. ii. 11), and life a " walking in the flesh " (II Cor. x. 3). Corresponding to the peculiarity of the New Testament revelation of salvation, the Old Testament contrast between God and man, flesh and spirit, has developed into the contrast between sarx and the pneuma hagion. In connection with the latter contrast Paul defines the relation between sarx
and sin in so far as with the former 6. Paul, and through it there adheres to man
an evil disposition, a being sold unto ' sin (Rom. vii. 14). Man is dominated by sin; it lives in and through him. It was therefore easy for Chrysostom to identify sarx with an evil disposition or for Neander to define it as " human nature in its alienation from God." In a similar way Holsten maintained that for Paul sarx was the material, sensual substance in contrast with pneuma as the immaterial, spiritual and Divine substance. In the sarx and pneuma of Paul there is, according to Holsten, the opposition of the finite and the infinite, evil and good, so that in Pauline theology sin was a necessity. The whole Pauline view of the world, according to him, forms a dualism which has its root in the Jewish and Hellenistic view of the world. But it has been shown above that the thoughts of Paul as well as the other writings of the New Testament are in no way dependent upon the