The Narrow Path Ministries

In Romans 7:14-18 we find:

Romans 7:14-18 (NASB)

14. For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh (Grk. sarkikos), sold into bondage to sin. 15. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh (Grk. sarx); for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.


The New International has "unspiritual" for "flesh" in verse 14 and "sinful nature" for "flesh" in verse 18. The meaning of flesh in verse 14 seems easy to ascertain; sarkikos means "in the manner of flesh" and easily fits the context. In verse 18 can the meaning of flesh be strictly literal or is the ego also necessarily included?

In Galatians 5:19-21 Paul list several of the deeds of the flesh:

Galatians 5:19-21 (NASB)

19. Now the deeds of the flesh (Grk. sarx) are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20. idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21. envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

How many of the sins of the flesh Paul lists are actually sins prompted by the physical body alone apart from the ego? The physical body needs air, water, food, clothing/shelter from the elements, hormones drive sexual desire, and safety from danger. These basic needs of the flesh can certainly drive all sorts of sinful behavior in fulfilling them. But sins such as coveting, envy, pride, gossip, idolatry, etc. would seem to spring from the mind rather than strictly the flesh. I'm thinking Paul had an inclusive meaning of flesh which included the unregenerate whole person.

By ego I mean the conscious mind. The flesh prompts the person to do certain things; you do not need to think about the need to get a drink of water when thirsty.

Opinions anyone?

To me you answered your own question with this: "I'm thinking Paul had an inclusive meaning of flesh which included the unregenerate whole person." I think it's a very grave mistake to think Paul only meant the physical body.

I am inclined to agree with the New International that considers "the flesh" to be "the sinful nature."

Hello Homer,

you wrote:... I'm thinking Paul had an inclusive meaning of flesh which included the unregenerate whole person.

I certainly resonate with the direction you're going. Only I wouldn't say his meaning is inclusive of what you say, but rather that his primary meaning of the flesh is figuratively the unregenerate whole person. That is, that which is corruptible and corrupted in us. I believe Paul used [in]the flesh/spirit, the outward/inward man, and the old/new man as synonyms for describing largely similar things—though very possibly one and the same concept. In short, I think it's a very grave mistake to assume he meant the physical body.

Hi Jeremiah,

You wrote:

In short, I think it's a very grave mistake to assume he meant the physical body.

Are you saying that the literal flesh has no role at all or that the physical desires do play some part in what in what motivates us to sin? I think I'm in agreement with you but could you elaborate on what your thinking is? For example, it seems that testosterone promotes both sexual sin and violence in young men, but I think the physical flesh plays the smaller part overall in the motivation to sin.

Another thing I am studying is Paul's choice of words. If the person (wretched man) in the passage in Romans is a believer in Christ (I'm thinking the person is a believer in God under The Law) it seems Paul would have said something along the "double-minded" (Grk. dipsuchos, #1374) of James. The expanded Strong's says this word literally means "two-souled" but I haven't yet found that meaning given elsewhere.

Edit. Just found this from Forerunner Commentary (whatever that is):

The Greek word translated "double-minded" in James 1:8, dipsuchos, in its literal sense means "double-souled," like having two independent wills.

Do you think animals can sin? (curious because they certainly have biological flesh)

Do you think animals can sin? (curious because they certainly have biological flesh)

Natural law is irrelevant to them because they do what is in their nature, what they are created to do. And they do not have revelation, so no.

Homer wrote:

Do you think animals can sin? (curious because they certainly have biological flesh)

Natural law is irrelevant to them because they do what is in their nature, what they are created to do. And they do not have revelation, so no.

What ways do their flesh desires differently than humans? (Honest question I'm not being sarcastic).

Homer, you wrote:Are you saying that the literal flesh has no role at all or that the physical desires do play some part in what in what motivates us to sin?...

No I wouldn't say the physical body doesn't have a role in motivation for sin. I would imagine that were it not derived from Jesus, or some other Jewish idiom, Paul probably derived this manner of speaking partly due to the various things we feel in our chest or gut when engaged in sinful behaviors, or may have been aware of some version of what you laid out after your question. I just don't think something like this is his primary root of what he means to communicate by "the flesh." The main reason being it is this same flesh that God intends to redeem and is redeeming even now, by his spirit.

Jesus said, "... it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing." The flesh can only receive life by receiving the spirit or breath of life. Which picture we precisely find in the human person and indeed all flesh, as also James speaks of in his letter. And so I believe Paul uses the flesh to communicate corruption or the corrupted, also as he puts it elsewhere, the natural man. Just as without God giving us spirit/breath we are just a dead body of flesh, so to with out God working within us teaching us to do good where we were accustom to doing evil, we are not much better than just a dead body of flesh. But with the spirit of God we are alive, and now indeed with God's own Holy Spirit we who were dead are given life.

Jeremiah,

You wrote:

And so I believe Paul uses the flesh to communicate corruption or the corrupted, also as he puts it elsewhere, the natural man.

Very interesting. Most recently I have been using Lange's Commentary in studying Romans. Some of his interesting comments:

1. Regarding "flesh" (sarx) in chapter 7 he says the best sense of the word is "in my naturalness", and in the ethical sense includes the whole natural man, not just the material flesh but also the ego.

2.The Christian has a spiritual nature, over and against the carnal nature, in which good does dwell.

3. If the reference is to the regenerate person, why no mention of the Spirit and why such a powerlessness
as expressed?

Is this similar to your thinking concerning the "wretched man"?