When people look at the word "flesh" in the Bible, they automatically think "sinful nature." That comes out of experience and not the Bible.
This may come as a shock, but we do
not have a nature! For that matter, nothing in this world has a
nature. Let's illustrate so we can understand this word. Take a look at a book.
Does the book possess a nature? If so, where might one locate it? Is it
within the pages, the ink, the binding, or the covers? When we
discuss the nature of an object, like the book, we're referring to the
complete essence of that book.
The book itself doesn't have a specific
nature. We're just listing what makes up the book, like the paper, ink,
dye, stitches, and cardboard. We also mention its size and weight,
which could be around 1 to 1.5 pounds. This is how the book is, in
comparison to something like your smartphone.
What is the nature of your smartphone? It's made of things
like metal, wires, and plastic, with a specific size and shape. Can we
put the smartphone's nature into the book? No, that's not possible. Can
we give the smartphone two natures? You might think we can melt the
smartphone and use it as a tray, but that wouldn't give it two natures;
we simply changed how we use it. We have simply altered its shape and
use, but we have not given it another nature.
You could melt the smartphone and turn it into a doorstop,
but that wouldn't alter its nature. Instead, you've only modified its
structure. While you've adjusted its physical form, the phone's
fundamental nature remains unchanged. In reality, when you melted it,
you essentially recreated it. You've changed the nature of it, but it
remains composed of the same substance. It wouldn't possess two
distinct natures; it would acquire a new one. Nevertheless, the truth
is, it doesn't possess a nature at all. The term "nature" merely serves
to describe the core essence of an object. According to the 1828
Webster dictionary, nature is defined as "The essence, essential
qualities, or attributes of a thing, which constitute what it
is..."
Describing something as having a nature presents an inherent contradiction. Stating that we possess a sinful nature
lacks substantive meaning. If one were to claim they have a sinful
nature, the question arises: Where does this nature reside? Is it
within the mind or the body? Can it be pinpointed? If one were to
remove this supposed sinful nature, would they still possess a nature?
If they were to acquire another nature, would that result in two
distinct natures? Some individuals genuinely hold the belief that
they possess two distinct natures. They often express this as "an
inherent tendency towards sin." If this inclination is located within
one's spirit and mind, does it constitute their sole nature? If one is
characterized by a sinful nature, can one act contrary to what aligns
with this nature? In simpler terms, would they always engage in sinful
actions? Could they ever perform righteous deeds? Would any internal
conflict between good and evil exist if their nature is solely sinful?
Questions: Where did you get that nature? Who created it?
You might suggest that this nature
originated when Adam sinned. However, can we truly say that Adam
recreated his own nature or substance? What is sin composed of?
Is it a tangible substance? Did Adam fundamentally alter the
composition of his whole being when he sinned, or did God effectively
reshape and reprogram him following his transgression? (Would this same
reasoning apply to Eve as well?) Did God essentially reconfigure
Adam and reprogram him so that all he could do from that point onward
was continually engage in sinful behavior? If sin will do that to
you, if it changes your nature, and then that sin is passed down to
future descendants (as we are taught), then what about when Cain sinned
by murdering his brother? Did all his descendants become
murderers? What about when your father sinned? Did you
inherit his sinful nature as well? What about your father's
farther, his father, and his farther and so on? Did each one
recreate his own nature with every act of sin so that ultimately we are
the accumulation of all the sins of the past? Can you clarify
why, when an individual becomes saved and supposedly obtains a new
nature, their baby still inherits a sinful nature? Shouldn't a
Christian's offspring also be inherently righteous? If a baby is born
with a sinful nature despite having saved parents, where does this
inherent inclination come from?
Nature is not a thing. Remember, the word "nature" is defined as: The essence, essential qualities or attributes of a thing, which constitute it what it is..."
Nature is not a tangible substance; it's intangible. The term
"nature" is akin to the word "definition." When we examine physical
objects, we can define them, but where does this definition reside? For
instance, take another look at the book. Can you locate the definition
of that book within it? Is it contained within the book itself? The
definition merely serves to describe the book's attributes. Nature is not an entity. Definition is not an entity. It's a word we use to describe the essence of something.
To further understand this point,
look at creation. Who created the sun, the air, wood, fire, heat,
etc.? We know God did. Has man given anything to
nature? No. However, we certainly can take an object and
work to rearrange it and misuse what God has created, but man is not a
creator.
Nothing possesses two natures. Using
or applying something incorrectly does not alter its fundamental
nature. When Adam transgressed, his nature remained unaltered. He still
consisted of the same essence that God initially created. Adam's nature
remained constant in his body, soul, and spirit; otherwise, God would
have had to recreate him. The only aspect that shifted when Adam sinned
was his relationship with God. Consequently,
due to that transgression, he and Eve were prohibited from remaining in
the garden, where they could have continued
to partake of the Tree of Life, sustaining their mortal bodies. This is
the reason for our physical aging and mortality. Adam's descendants
also lost access to the Tree of Life because of his sin, yet his nature
remained unchanged.
Another question. How can a
person feel responsible for something that does not spring from his
choice but rather governs his choice? How can
he feel responsible? How can you approach a homosexual and
tell him he is suppose to stop living that lifestyle if it springs from
his nature? How can we rebuke him and encourage him to repent? He
would only be acting within his nature, which you tell him he has, a sinful nature!
The fact is, there no such adjective
before the word nature in the Bible. One may find it in the NIV,
but the translators made an interpretation and
not a translation of the word "Sarx," which means "flesh," as in meat,
and nothing more. We have a body of flesh (Sarx) as animal have
flesh. The term "sinful nature" or "old nature" is Augustine's
theology that has infected the whole world for centuries.
We must watch the terms we use.
The battle that is fought over sin doesn't involve an “old
man” vs a “new man” or a battle between
"natures". There is no carnal nature. There is no sinful nature. There is no Adamic nature. There is no old nature. There is no new nature.
You will not find these terms in the Bible. The only place you
will find these terms are in the fable teachings of Original Sin.
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. -Gal. 5:9
For further reading, see:
The Influence Of Greek Philosophy On The Development Of Christian Theology