trustitl said:
The flesh is not evil. It is inanimate and has no moral qualities. Like a gun is unable to kill anybody, the flesh is unable to sin: someone needs to aim and pull the trigger of a gun and the flesh waits for the mind to direct it.
Although I am not entirely certain of my own position here, I suspect that you are applying a non-Pauline conceptualization of the term "flesh". And, of course, what really matters is what Paul meant by the term, not what the term means to us in the 21st century. I think that Paul often, although not always, uses sarx in a manner where "flesh" indeed entails the "fallen-ness" of human beings.
A further opinion from NT Wright on the way Paul uses "sarx"
"The term “flesh” (
sarx) is seldom if ever for Paul a merely neutral description of physicality; almost always it carries some hint both of the corruptibility and of the rebelliousness of present human existence"
I also quote from William Lane Craig with some comments inserted by me:
"During the nineteenth century under the influence of idealism, theologians interpreted the
swma (Andre insert:
soma, I think) as the form of a thing and the
sarx (Andre insert: this is the greek word "
sarx")as its substance. In this way they could avoid the objectionable notion of a physical resurrection, for it was the form that was raised from the dead endowed with a new spiritual substance. This understanding has now been all but abandoned.
The view of swma as merely form and sarx (Andre insert: sarx) as its substance cannot be exegetically sustained"
Now Wright and Craig do seem to be slightly at odds. Elsewhere in his article, Craig goes on to say that sarx is sometimes used in the "morally neutral, physical stuff sense":
"But they seem prone to overlook the fact that Paul
often uses
sarx (sarx)
in a non-moral sense simply to mean the physical flesh or body."
Nevertheless, both of these academics are clear: Paul does
not always use sarx in the "substance-only, devoid of moral qualities" sense.
I researched other sources as well. They appear to be unanimous in their position: sarx is often used to denote more than simply physical substance. Here is another quote:
"Flesh"
includes the human propensity to weakness and its solidarity with sin and death through Adam"
I suspect that you are using a non-Pauline definition of "flesh" here. Let me ask: On what do you base your understanding of what "flesh" means
for Paul?
I suspect that the reality is, as is often the case, more complicated. Based on my 20 minute "researh", it seems that sarx is used in multiple different ways by Paul. So I suppose we need to look at each relevant text and not simply apply
either of the following hermeneutical keys:
sarx = physical stuff with no moral qualities
sarx = physical stuff bearing the imprint of fallenness.
