Antededents to Flesh

Paul’s use of “flesh” to denote the sinful nature has antecedents in the Old Testament and second-Temple Jewish texts.

The use of the term “flesh” to mean human weakness occurs in Old Testament (Gen 8:21; Isa 40:6, 8; 2 Chr 32:8; Ps 78:39; Jer 17:5). Flesh as a term denoting both human weakness and sinfulness, that aspect of the human being that stands in opposition to God, is found in Qumran sectarian writings (The Community Rule and The Thanksgiving Hymns; The War Scroll), in 4QInstruction (Hebrew: basar) and in Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Greek: sarx).

Paul's views are not by any means identical but enough overlap exists to conclude that Paul adapted a Palestinian Jewish idea and terminology to express the opposition between the Spirit and what one could call the "sinful nature."

(P. Jewett provides a history of what he calls "the new 'religious-historical' discussion," which includes the attempt to interpret Paul's concept of sarx in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.)[4]

At his visitation, the time of eschatological salvation and final judgment, God as merciful will put an end to the existence of deceit (4.18-19). It is said that "God will purify by His truth all the works of man and purge for himself some from the sons of man. He will utterly destroy the spirit of deceit from within his flesh " (4.20-21). What is being described is the eschatological removal of the "spirit of deceit," the spirit that causes human beings to be disobedient. The sons of truth may be generally righteous, having a greater portion of the spirit of truth, but they still a share in the spirit of deceit. Only at the time of God's "visitation" will the possibility of disobedience to God be eliminated altogether. In this context "flesh" means the human being as physical, but its close association with "spirit of deceit" lends it a negative connotation, so that to be a human being is be under the influence of the spirit of deceit.

The author, using the gnomic "I," the author confesses his sinfulness and general debasement in relation to God: "And I belong to wicked adam, to the assembly of deceitful flesh ; my iniquities, my transgressions, my sins with the perversity of my heart belong to the assembly of worms and of those who walk in darkness. For my way belongs to adam" (11:9-10). It is clear from this passage that human beings are sinful and generally debased in relation to God. What is significant is that this inherent sinfulness is described as belonging to "the assembly of the flesh of deceit" or "the assembly of deceitful flesh" (which is set in apposition to "wicked Adam"). The word "deceit" is that used commonly in 1QS to describe the "spirit" that causes human beings to disobey God (see 1QS 3.13-4.26). A similar confession occurs in 1QS 11.12: "When I totter, the lovingkindness of God is my salvation forever; when I stumble over iniquity of flesh , my judgment is in the righteousness of God, which endures forever." "Salvation" and "judgment" are synonymous; the need for God's salvation or judgment is the fact of human sin, expressed by the verbs "to totter" or "to stumble over the iniquity of flesh." The reason for the stumbling is identified as "the iniquity of flesh," which means something like iniquity that results from the fact that human beings are " flesh," i.e., inherently weak and sinful. The cause or origin of salvation or judgment is the lovingkindness or righteousness of God, those attributes whereby God is willing to act savingly.

The author of 1QH 4[12].29-30 confesses, “What is flesh compared to this [God’s power]? What creatures of clay can do wonders? He is sin from his mother’s womb.” He contrasts human beings defined as "flesh" and "creatures of clay" with God, in particular God's power. The point is that human beings are weak and powerless in comparison to God. In addition, human beings are inherently sinful: "sin from his mother’s womb." Human beings described as "flesh" have both innate weakness and sinfulness.

In 1QH 10[18].23, the author asks, “What is the spirit of flesh to fathom all these matters and to appreciate your great and wondrous secret? What is someone born of woman among all your awesome works? He is a structure of dust shaped with water, his base is the guilt of sin, vile unseemliness, source of impurity, over which a spirit of degeneracy rules.” (In 13.13 the term is used to apply to human beings generally) (See also 1QH 18.21: “And what is flesh ?”) The author refers to human beings by the paradoxical term "the spirit of flesh," which denotes human beings as inherently weak and sinful. The author seems to mean that the basic human disposition, the human "spirit," is that of flesh or sinful. This is borne out by the description of human beings as being ruled by "a spirit of degeneracy." The author of 1QH 17(4).25 refers to himself by the epithet "spirit of flesh." The phrase "spirit of flesh" communicates that the author believes that his basic disposition, his "spirit," is that of flesh, a term used in the DSS to denote human weakness and sinfulness.

In the Qumran sectarian writings, human beings are also depicted negatively by virtue of being made from the dust of the ground, which is considered to be a shameful and ignominious origin (Gen 2:7); to be made of "dirt" explains for the Qumran sectarians take as an explanation the degradation of human beings. For example, 1QH 13.15-16 says, "What is someone born of woman among all your awesome works? He is a structure of dust shaped with water, his base is the guilt of sin, vile unseemliness, source of impurity, over which a spirit of degeneracy rules" (see also 1QH 11[1].21-23; 1QS 11.20-22) (O. Betz, Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte [WUNT 6; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1960] 120-23). In 1QH-a 4.29 (cited above) being flesh is parallel in meaning to being a creature of clay (an allusion to Gen 2:7).

In the War Scroll, the term "flesh" is used in a negative sense. In 1 QM 4.3, the phrase "all degenerate flesh" occurs and in 1QM 12.12 reference is made to God's sword consuming "guilty flesh." In both cases, "flesh" has the implication of sinfulness.

Two discourses concerning final judgment have survived from 4QInstruction, which is probably not a Qumran sectarian text.

In the first discourse, preserved in 4Q416 frg. 1 (= 4Q418 frg. 2), the sage says, “In heaven he [God] will judge the work of iniquity.” This refers to final judgment. The phrase “works of iniquity” describes acts of disobedience to the Law; whether gentiles are included in this judgment is not clear. At this time, it is said that “All the spirit of flesh will be stripped naked.” The phrase “spirit of flesh” refers to the human being as sinful (1QH-a 10[18].23; 19 [13.13] ). It could be paraphrased as "those with a sinful basic disposition." “To be stripped naked” is a metaphor for being judged and found guilty. Similarly, the author and the community that he represents see themselves as a remnant of Israel, “the men of favor” (4Q418 frg. 81.10) and “separated from all the spirit of flesh” (4Q418 frg. 81.1-2). To be separated from "spirit of flesh" is to be separated from Jews whose basic disposition is sinful. The implication that a serious religious division between two mutually exclusive groups within Judaism has occurred.

In T. Judah 19:4, the patriarch explains why he fell into sin by having illicit sexual relations with Tamar, his daughter-in-law: "For the ruler of deceit blinded me, and I knew not, as a man, as flesh, in my corrupt sins.” What is of significance is that refers to himself "as flesh, in my corrupt sins" (hos sarx en hamartiais phthareis). To be a human being is the be "flesh" and to be sinful. Similarly, in T. Zebulon 9:7, the patriarch says, "He [God] does not bring a charge of wickedness against men, since they are flesh and the spirits of deceit lead them astray in all their actions." To be a human being is to be flesh (sarx) and therefore easily led astray by demons ("spirits of deceit").

Similar to Paul's use of the term "flesh" to denote the "sinful nature," some second-Temple sources posit the existence of an evil principle within each individual, which resists obedience to God. This evil principle is given names in different texts.

This section begins with a heading that describes its contents: "It is for the Master to instruct and teach all the sons of light concerning the nature of all the sons of men, according to all the kinds of spirits revealed in the character of their deeds during their generations and according to their visitation of affliction as well as their times of reward" (3.12). In other words, this section of the Rule of the Community provides an interpretation of the human being, including the two possible eschatological destinies of "the sons of men." God has established two "spirits" in which a person can walk until the time of His visitation, which are identified as the spirits of truth and of deceit (3.18-19). These seem to be are synonymous with the spirits of light and darkness (3.25). (In 3.25 it is said that God actually created both the spirits of light and darkness.) The spirit of truth is said to have its origin in "a spring of light," whereas the spirit of deceit has its origin in "a well of darkness" (3.19). This is a metaphorical way of identifying the spirit of truth with light and the spirit of deceit with darkness, so that these different designations for the opposing pairs are synonymous. Every human activity originates in one of these two spirits: righteous acts in the spirit of truth and wicked acts in the spirit of deceit (3.25; 4.2-14). The two spirits should be interpreted as two opposing human dispositions or propensities: the spirit of truth is the capacity for obedience to God while the spirit of deceit is the capacity for evil. In other words, these possibilities are spiritual "spheres" in which a human being can abide. The two spirits are also the two "classes" or "divisions" into which human beings can be classified according to the preponderance of one or the other spirit. All human action derives ultimately from the influence of the spirit of truth or the spirit of deceit, and human beings are defined by their habitual actions (4.15-17).

Somehow identified with the spirit of truth is the Prince of Lights (3.20) or Angel of Truth (3.24), while the Angel of Darkness (3.21) is identified with the spirit of deceit. The exact relationship between these spiritual beings and their corresponding human dispositions or propensities is not clear. What is clear, nonetheless, is that in which spirit a person walks depends on which of these two beings holds sway over him. Those who walk in the ways of light, the sons of righteousness, are under the dominion of the Prince of Light and those who walk in the ways of darkness are under the dominion of the Angel of Darkness (3.20-21). In effect, the Prince of Lights rules those in the community, while those on the outside are consigned to the Angel of Darkness. Moreover, the Angel of Darkness (and the spirits of his lot) are said to be responsible for all the sins of the sons of righteousness, but without absolving them of responsibility: "But in the hand of the Angels of Darkness is the dominion of the sons of deceit; and in the ways of darkness they walk" (3.20b-21a). Even though they walk in the spirit of truth and are therefore under the dominion of the angel of Prince of Lights, still the Angel of Darkness is able to lead them astray: "And all their sins, their iniquities, their guilt and their acts of rebellion are because of his dominion" (3.22).

There is some evidence that the author of this hymn works with the idea of the two inclinations. He writes, "You put a pure heart in its (?) place; [removing] the evil inclination" (2.1.10). It seems that what is being described is the removal of a disobedient heart, dominated by the evil inclination, and its replacement by a pure heart, obedient to God. Unfortunately, what corresponds positively to the evil inclination, as the causal antecedent rendering the author's heart pure, is not stated.

In T. Judah 20, the patriarch teaches that there are two spirits (pneumata) that await an opportunity with a person, the spirit of truth (to tês alêtheias) and the spirit of falsehood (to tês planês). These two spirits designate two ethical dispositions or propensities of a human being, for good and for evil. (Although nothing in the context suggests it, these opposing terms may be associated with two opposing angelic beings who influence human behavior, as in 1QS 3–4.) Juxtaposed between these two “spirits” is what is called “the understanding of the mind," which inclines to the one spirit or other. The phrase “the understanding of the mind” describes the human being as standing before the two moral options of good and evil. Thus, the phrase seems to denote the moral center of a person or simply the “conscience,” which is that human faculty whereby one knows the difference between right and wrong and has the capacity to make moral choices. Perhaps the genitive “of mind” is added to “understanding” as genitive of quality in order to stress the cognitive element in moral choice.

A longer exposition of the doctrine of human freedom is found in T. Asher 1:3–9. Asher says to his children, “God has given two ways to the sons of men, two inclinations, two ways of acting, two ways of life and two ends." He then says that, within the human breast, there are two inclinations (duo diaboulia) that choose between the "two ways," the good and the evil. (It seems that “two ways” are more or less synonymous with the “two ways of acting,” “two ways of life” and “two ends.”) A person necessarily gives preference to one of these two inclinations and its corresponding “way”: “If the soul has a preference for the good, all its actions are in righteousness, and if it sins, it repents immediately” (1:6–7). The two characteristics that mark the one whose soul has a preference for the good are that he does what is right and he repents of uncharacteristic sins immediately (The implication is that the righteous are not perfect, only willing to turn from sin). But if the inclination is allowed to incline toward evil, a person will drive out the good (1:8). This means that, when he habitually chooses the evil, a person will soon become completely evil; in other words, he will not be able to maintain a neutral position between good or evil over the long term.

The author recognizes that he needs help in remaining obedient to God, as demonstrated by this petition: "Grant me a spirit of faithfulness and knowledge; let me not be dishonored in ruin" (14). A spirit of faithfulness is the disposition to be obedient, while a spirit of knowledge is the capacity of knowing what God requires. The author apparently sees himself as lacking in both areas, so that he turns to God to make up this deficiency. If God does not grant this request, the author foresees that he will "be dishonored in ruin." Immediately following a request for protection from Satan, the psalmist also asks that neither "pain nor the evil inclination take possession of his bones." To take possession of his bones is to take complete possession of the author. Pain seems to be ordinary physical affliction, which the author fears may derail his efforts at faithfulness to God. The evil inclination (yetzer ra'), on the other hand, is the propensity to evil inherent in the author; he requests that God subdue this propensity to evil in him, so that it would not lead him into sin.

The early rabbis assume that human beings were morally free, but this does not mean that the will is not influenced in its deliberations. Central to the early rabbinic conception of the human being is the idea of the evil inclination (ha-yetzer ha-ra'), derived from Gen 6.5; 8.21; Deut 31:21 (see W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980] 17-35). It denotes the universal human tendency towards disobedience. Although created by Him, it seeks to lead human beings away from God (Sipre Deut 45). In the sources, the evil inclination as this tendency is almost hypostatized, becoming the enemy within, that which seeks to lead a human being into sin and to destruction (see m. Abot 2.11). The evil inclination seeks to lead human beings into idolatry (Mek. Bahodesh 6.85-86; Sipre Deut 43). It also seeks to create doubt about the validity of those commandments in the Torah for there are no parallels in the law codes of the nations and which appear as arbitrary and unnecessary (Sipra Lev Ahare 13 [8-9]), as well as deceiving people into believing that there is no life after death (m. Abot 4.22). The evil inclination also incited Boaz to sexual impropriety when Ruth spent to night at the foot of his bed (Sipre Num 88 [II 1.U]), and seeks to deceive people into believing that there is no life after death (m. Abot 4.22). In general the evil inclination stands in antithesis to Torah (Sipre Deut 222).

Nevertheless, among the early rabbis, whose religious roots are in Pharisaism, there are a few haggadot in which sin and death are traced back to the first man. In the early rabbinic midrash on Numbers, it is said that, since Adam began the transgression, punishment begins with him (Sipre Num 18. XVIII:1 on Num 5:17); the implication is that, in some sense, Adam is responsible for the sinful tendency of his descendants.) In Sipre Deut (on Deut 32:32), R. Yehuda ben Illai attributes universal death to Adam: "Their grapes are grapes of gall (rosh) [Deut32:32]—you are the descendants of primeval (ri 'shon) Adam, for whom I decreed death, both for him and for his descendants who follow him until the end of all generations" (Sipre Deut 323). For references to the origin of death or sin in second-Temple sources, see Sirach 25:24; Wis 2:22-224.