Paul the Platonist? (2)
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. Romans 7:18 NASB
In my flesh – It’s true, isn’t it? We know what the right thing to do is, but we do the wrong thing anyway. We want to do good, but we do evil. Whatever compels us, it just seems impossible to stop this train wreck.
Is that how you feel? Like some alien force is at work in your body, filling you with desires and temptations that you just can’t seem to shake, causing you to commit sins over and over? I’m quite sure that most of us have experienced the hopeless feeling that results from witnessing ourselves return again and again to those sinful patterns we so desperately want to extinguish. Is this what Paul says about believers? That they are caught on the wheel of the flesh? That’s what Augustine thought Paul meant. That’s why he formulated the idea of the sinful nature, that inner part of me that causes me to sin in spite of my knowledge of righteousness. Augustine thought that Romans 7 was Paul personal story, an account of Paul plight under the Law, desperate for the release from the wiles of the flesh through the grace offered by Christ. Since Augustine’s formulation, many Christian expositors have followed suit, contending that in our natural state we are simply victims of overwhelming spiritual forces bent on our destruction. Inherited from Adam, we now carry this alien power within, destroying our most righteous intentions.
But is that what Paul was saying? Is Paul really Plato in disguise, telling us that our physical bodies are the source of our sinfulness, that our spiritual desire to live God’s way is short-circuited by material existence? What does Paul mean by the phrase “in my flesh”?
If Paul followed rabbinic teaching (and he did), then he would have considered the body to be the masterpiece of God’s creation. The individuality of each person was considered a blessing of the Holy One, capable of revealing the enormous diversity of God’s creative ability. The rabbis taught that the fetus in the womb was taught the whole of Torah, but at the moment of birth an angel came a snatched it away. The marvel of the human body called forth praise from the rabbis. According to rabbinic thought, the moral condition of the physical body is in the hands of each person and is determined and exhibited through choice, not destiny. In fact, the rabbis taught that a sinless person would necessarily be exempt from death. The implication is that such a person could actually exist. But the rabbis also taught that man has a dual nature, a “soul” from heaven and a “body” from earth. The character of a man’s life depends entirely on his watchfulness and care of his soul. But Hebraic thought does not view these two elements as independent. Man is an embodied being, animated by the breath of God. Man is responsible for this interconnected dependence and is therefore accountable for any and all acts that effect either side of the same coin.
Unlike Plato, Paul does not conceive of the body as evil, inherently corrupt and the cause of sin. Paul is a rabbi, not a Greek philosopher. Let us suppose, then, that Paul is using the phrase “in my flesh” as a rabbi would. This means that Paul is not addressing a follower of YHVH in the Romans 7 context. He is speaking about pagan Gentiles who have come to recognize what righteousness is (living according to Torah), but find that their past patterns of behavior are so entrenched that they continue to live the old way in spite of their desire to change. What they have determined is that there is no good thing in the past way of living; that nothing good dwells in the flesh that has been trained and accustomed to serve the yetzer ha’ra. Without a radical change in direction, the power of the yetzer ha’ra continues to upset righteous desires.
Paul cannot be teaching that the body itself is the source of my evil choices. That is not possible given the rabbinic appreciation of God’s creation of the body. In Paul’s description, the flesh is not the physical body. The flesh is sarx, commonly understood as the translation of the Hebrew basar. But basar does not mean a corrupt and inherently evil “nature” resident within the physical body. Basar is literally flesh as in flesh and bone, and metaphorically external life, inner attitude or human frailty. No one claims that actual flesh and bone are sinful. If basar is viewed as the outward manifestation of choices, then the “flesh” is the observable consequences of choices. We might expect that basar would be translated by the Greek soma (body), but it isn’t. That means that sarx is not the same as the Greek idea of “body, mind and soul.” Sarx is something else. Sarx is never used in the LXX with regard to sensuality and not connected to the ethical dualism of Plato’s world. The “flesh” is the summary of who I am in my present condition. It is my reputation, my persona, my character. Sarx is my existence as human and in rabbinic thought, my existence is not essentially sinful.
This entails that Paul does not teach nor support a doctrine of two natures. The comment in TDNT concerning Romans 7 is clearly influenced by a commitment to a theology that distinguishes grace apart from law.
“Rom. 7:18, 25 might seem to suggest cleavage into sárx and noús, but the depiction is that of the pre-Christian life in which what is contrasts sharply with what ought to be. Sincere people might wish to serve God but even in so doing they fall into the sin of establishing their own righteousness. Right desires become carnal action, so that only in retrospect can one differentiate the will which opposes the sárx but precisely in so doing makes its work responsible and guilty.”[1]
But Paul is not expressing a “pre-Christian” dilemma. He is taking about what it means to be human in a world where choices determine outward appearance. Once I realize the character of righteousness, I discover that how I appear in the world has been an expression of the yetzer ha’ra. And that must change through the power of the Lord.
Topical Index: Platonism, sarx, body, basar, flesh, Romans 7:18
[1] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1005). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
We are taught in the Word that the flesh is weak (i.e. unable to provide motive force, or, power); not bad. But, then, the flesh was never meant to be our primary source in the first place! Just think about it: the pair in the Garden did not walk in their flesh, either! I think we have only been battled back to the trenches of the flesh by a long losing streak. In my flesh there is no good thing because the flesh represents a place where I have chosen my choices away already; where the only choice left is more of the same. I have no power in my flesh to do good because power is choice, but righteousness is the only place where I walk in the full power of that choice; however, choice occurs in the realm of the heart. True choice is something we can only do when we operating in our spiritual side of ourselves.
The flesh is not a place where righteousness can be enacted because the flesh was never meant to be our Front Man; it was always supposed to be our response, not our source. Righteousness can manifest in the flesh, but it can never originate there. It is impossible to make a real choice in the flesh because ALL of the flesh is designed to be reaction to a command from higher up. The components of the flesh, of the yetzer ha-ra, such as ego, thought, desire, emotions, and even bodily responses – biological reactions – all were intended by design to fall in the realm of RESPONSE MECHANISMS. I believe all of them, even our desires, were created and conditioned to be a reaction to a spiritual direction. This is why we are told repeatedly to harness our desires, along with all the rest of our flesh responses, and PROVIDE them with a spiritual direction. They were never meant to be a source of that spiritual direction!
Only the insanity of sin could ever believe that my flesh is a SOURCE of power; of choice. My flesh can’t choose anything! It can only respond to choices already made in the past. This is why I cannot change in my flesh. The insanity of sin is where we try to set up a kingdom; a ruling center, in a part of reality that literally ALREADY HAS BEEN RULED, or, chosen. The flesh is a manifestation of what has already been chosen; the flesh is already in the past. I cannot change the past! This is why anything that is not done in faith is sin! Only faith can command what has not yet occurred. The flesh is a manifestation, in a very real sense, of choices past. By the time it goes down, its already too late. My desires, therefore, represent the reality I have already chosen. If I want to desire only good, then I have to make the choices that will set those desires to want only the good. I have the power to command the yetzer ha-ra, but that power is not in my flesh reality, for my flesh only resides in the past, and command; choice; RULING POWER; can only occur at the edge of the future, or, as an expression of faith, which is a spiritual reality. Whew! I am out of breath! I bet you all are out of ears!
What do I mean by spiritual? In this context I would say that my soul, my heart, is the place that I was made to commune directly with my Maker, and respond directly to Him, and make the choice to obey Him. I find that my heart is therefore the place where I determine the convictions I make my choices based upon, for my heart is the place I was created to respond to, or be a derivative of, my Creator. Every choice I make: indeed, every thought I think in my biological brain, has been already set by what I have determined in my heart, in my soul, in my spirit, to be true in my life. If I do not believe in my heart that little green men exist, I find in impossible to formulate the thought in my brain that there actually is one in the next room. That thought is not even something my brain will create anything IN RESPONSE TO because my heart believes it to be nonsense. My flesh response is governed by my spiritual direction. Every response in the body: every change in a cell, every firing of a muscle fiber, is a reaction to a command from the brain, but every thought in the brain is formulated first as a conviction of the heart. What I believe – my paradigm – creates the reality my flesh walks in. This is why my flesh is not going to change its RESPONSE until I change what it has to respond to. “Tis the set of the sails, and not the gales, that determines the way we go.” (Love Ella Wheeler Wilcox!)
It is quite clear to me, anyway, that when we tried the evil method of divide and conquer with our nephesh: when we attempted to establish the fiction of an artificial separation of spirit, mind and body, we ended up essentially fractured from ourselves in our thinking, and so became unstable in all our ways. I think the Platonists’ real intention may have been to find a way to sin while cutting themselves out of the guilt loop that occurs when we find ourselves reacting to the choices we make. If I think of myself as a purely ‘spiritual’ being that is just momentarily trapped in a biological response, then I can walk away from the responsibility for the train wreck that occurred because I made poor choices. I didn’t really chop down that cherry tree: my body did it! LOL!
Skip,
Please allow me to share another view that I was exposed to some years ago.
Circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:29) is the antithesis of the flesh, uncircumcised heart. Circumcision of the heart is a biblical Hebrew idiom for Torah observance, righteousness, while the “flesh” is idiom for Torah defiance, unrighteousness, the Torah of sin.
These recent posts on Paul have been interesting and informative. I have recently read some books by authors who actually argue that Paul was influenced by Greek philosophy. They seem to think Paul hijacked the original faith of Yeshua that was led by James his brother. They think since Paul argued against Torah observance (in their opinions) and less responsibility for followers of Yeshua, his ideas triumphed over the Torah observant group led by James and as a result his ideas became more popular. Of course these authors arguments are more complicated and detailed than what I have stated.
Some of what I have read are “Jesus and Paul before Christianity” by V, George Shillington; “James the brother of Jesus” by Jeffrey J. Butz; “Paul and Jesus” by James D. Tabor; “When Jesus became God: the Epic Fight over Christ’s Divinity” by Richard E. Rubenstein; and “How Jesus became Christian” by Barrie Wilson. Of course I’m no scholar but I was really surprised there were so many authors/scholars who had this idea. There are more that I haven’t read. Have any of you read any of these books or know of these authors ideas?
I have not read these, but I have read many others who basically offer similar arguments. There is little historically or exegetically to support them, but if you adopt the paradigm proffered by the early Church, then, of course, you can find what you are looking for, and simply ignore the counterexamples.
Hi Skip,
I’m not sure if Mel S. is going to check back with this Today’s Word for July 8th or not, so, perhaps you could pass on this website to him. Our Rabbi, Jacob Rosenberg at Adat Hatikvah, spoke on the topic of Paul and whether or not he claimed to be a Christian or a Jew. Both are great sermons. And, the one on 7/11/15 begins with a good overview of the recent MJAA Conference in June 2015, which was very encouraging to hear.
6/27/15 (I am a Jew) Uses Scripture to demonstrate Paul’s commitment to Torah
7/11/15 (Paul on Trial Pt. 1)
http://www.adathatikvah.org/sermons/
You might want to check out a short YouTube video by Rabbi Tovia Singer. You can Google “Rabbi Tovia Singer on Paul”, or try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEGq0r0SbbM
I’m sure he has more indepth teachings on the subject.
I don’t recommend Rabbi Singer to the faint of heart, or to those not genuinely researching “all” doctrines of Christianity.
Kol Tov……………
The Flesh, Life B.C.
Is there, (he inquired) “life” before Christ? Yes, and [yet] no. When we were born, we each received [from God] the “breath of life,’ – our first breath. Personally, I can’t remember, – it’s been too long ago, but I do remember being present during the birth of our first grand-little, -watching and waiting for her to “breath on her own!, — truly, a “mini-miracle!” And then…” Life begins.
Life begins with [God giving us] our first breath and then? —many “breaths” later, taking away our last.
So here we are.. “breathing creatures,” – a higher form (sometimes, I wonder) of animal life. What (does) “distinguish” us apart from the (so called) animals below?
~ Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being ~ (Genesis 2.7)
Whether a puppy or a porpoise or a person, we all are “breathing creatures.”
David’s prayer? ~ Let everything that breathes “praise the LORD!!” ~ His exhortation? “Praise the LORD.”
EVERY good gift (and) EVERY perfect gift comes from [?]. I don’t know about you, but I’m rather fond of breathing! Have YOU thanked Him for your next breath? For your next heartbeat? For a “working mind?” For fingers that open and close? For our “daily bread?” Yes, “give us this day our daily bread,” is still very much a viable [and necessary!] prayer!
The flesh? What did the Son of God, the One who is the Living Word of God, [the word made flesh, btw!] have to say to us [and to all] concerning “the flesh?”
To the very righteous, very respected Nicodemus, (a ruler of the Jews,btw), our Savior said, “YOU MUST be born from Above!” A “second birth,” sir (or ma’am) is necessary!!
Spotlight on the “deer in the headlights!” What?? What then, (sumdumguy inquired) is this “new birth” all about? What was (or is) so “wrong” with our first one?
“Marvel not?” Do NOT be amazed, or astonished, or surprised that I say unto you,- You MUST be “born from Above!”
[Please, tell me then] – Sirs, what must “I” do to be saved? (Acts 16.31)