Page 330

Page 330

Ms,

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 8arx does not in the Bible always mean man himself, but that which shapes him, his guiding principle (ef. 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 baaar, and y 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 kreas only with regard to animals (i.e., the flesh of sacrifice). In

s. The this special application to man briar Hebrew means in the first place the substance

Briar. of the body. The bones or blood are sometimes mentioned with flesh, as constituting the body (Luke xxiv. 39; 1 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 briar 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 iii. 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. "· Bleslt" This attribute he shares with the Equivalent whole living universe. Flesh is the

to 'tlle<an.'s condition and outward expression of its existence; by the flesh it manifests its solidarity. 'Thus; as flesh, it is weak and frail (Pa. lxxviii. 39). Flesh is not spirit, nor vital power (In. xxxi. 3), but stands in living and moral contrast to spirit, the spirit of God (Dent. v. 26).

Thus in the Old Testament the term "flesh" connects itself with the conception, of impotence, need of salvation, and sinfulness f 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 tb 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 Apoc rypha. Sarx is spoken of as the substance of the human body (Sirach xix. 12, xliv. 20;

4. Jewish Judith xiv. 10 etc.). Pass 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 Pseudepigraphs and the remaining post-Biblical literature of the synagogue. Alex andrianism accepted the Old Testament meaning as little as did the theologians of the synagogue. The Septuagint perverted in important passages (Num. xvi. 22; lea. 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- THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG

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 yeger ha-ra', the evil disposition, the disposition toward the sensual from which the real evil has procPxded.

On this account it is the more peculiar that the writers of the New Testament--Paul not exceptedhave not built on this later foundation, but have gone back to the Old Testament. In the synoptic

Gospels and in Acts sarx designates g. New the substance of the body (Luke

Testament xsiv. 39; Acts ii. 26, 31), man and Usage, humanity (Matt. xix. 5, 6; Mark a. 8;

etc.). It denotes the distinction from God and that not in the physical sense, hence the incongruous, relation of 8arx to the divine principle of life in the heart of man- (Matt. xxvi. 41; Mark xiv. 31). The writings of Jon 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 gmeuma appears as s contrast of 8arx and the spirit of God (I Pet. iii. 18), and as a contrast of sarz and the human pnevma (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" aama tea aarkos (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 8arx and the Pneic»ea 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 Chrysoetom to identify sari with an evil disposition or for Neander to define it as " human nature in its alienation from God." In a similar way Holstea maintained that for Paul aarz was.the material, sensual substance in contrast with pneuma as the immaterial, spiritual and Divine substance. In the sarx and lmeuma of Paul there is, according to Holaten, 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