15 June 2007

Flesh Versus Spirit

In much of western thought the composition of a human being consists of two parts-- body and soul-- "body" being our material existence, and "soul" being our immaterial existence. Sometimes we use the terms "flesh" and "spirit". We run into problems when we put the emphasis on one over the other. Some of the most awful heresies have resulted from these pointed distinctions. One was called "Gnosticism", which taught that the material body was "evil", but the immaterial soul was the highest good and needs to escape from the evil body. The result was adherents of Gnostic systems either indulged the body or deprived the body, neither of which makes for a peaceful existence. In any event, the human composition is thought to be made of these two parts.

The Scriptures are not very much concerned with the human makeup as much as the environment the human being inhabits. This follows more of the contours of Hebraic thought. In Middle Eastern thinking, the human being is a unified whole, and there are no sharp distinctions between "body" and "soul". In fact, when addressing human composition, Scripture actually equates the two terms.

However, two different terms are used to address two different modes of existence of a human being, and these terms are usually descriptive of beliefs, attitudes, and religious environment. The terms are "flesh" and "spirit", and they are never equated in Scripture.

"Flesh" is a term that describes a person who attempts to garner favor with God through pulling himself up by his own bootstraps. "Spirit" describes a person who never depends on his own merit but rests in the knowledge that he is loved and accepted by God unconditionally.

The New Testament employs these terms to make a distinction between the Old and New Covenants. Living by the Old Covenant Law was called living "in the flesh", while living on the merits of Christ and the New Covenant was called living "in the Spirit". The early Christians were in the process of transitioning from being "in the flesh" to being "in the Spirit". This was their struggle. They were simul iustus et peccator, sinner and saint, flesh and spirit, at the same time. This happened because the New Covenant existence was gradually coming to the fore, while the Old Covenant existence was becoming obsolete. The Book of Hebrews really fleshes this out (pardon the pun!).

The meaning for us is that we are no longer living "in the flesh" because the Old Covenant economy is forever collapsed and of no consequence. The New Covenant age, ushered in by Christ, is in full effect. We are now "in the Spirit", all because of what Jesus did. That's why Scripture talks about things such as "The New Heavens and the New Earth", the New Creation, "putting off" the old and "putting on" the new. That's why John the Baptist said, "I must decrease (as a representative of the Old Covenant) while he (Jesus) must increase (as the bringer of the New Covenant). This kind of language typifies the New Testament.

Living in the Spirit doesn't mean that you become invisible to the naked eye. It merely means that our attempts to garner favor with God to avoid God's wrath are unnecessary because God's wrath has been completely spent and God's favor is without condition!

4 comments:

Listig said...

Good post. I think Gnosticism is alive and well today, and to be found among those who make orthodoxy all important, and orthopraxy meaningless.

I also think this is related to the common view of our earthly life as an unpleasant layover on the trip to heaven... so all that matters is making sure you have the right "ticket" to get you the rest of the way, not how you spend your time or live your life in the interim.

Chris said...

Certainly gnosticism is alive and well. One place I see it, especially in my particular religious affilitation, is in liturgical idolatry. Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are "smells and bells" folks. And someof my best friends are contemporary peace and love hippies.

This is where the old, stupid, "worship wars" debate breaks down. Each worship extreme is a once-removed form of gnosticism. Thoughts?

Listig said...

Yes I know Chris, I'm one of them (both types now... both counter-cultural hippy AND a smells-and-bellser), but you're quite right. The liturgy was made for man, not man for the liturgy! I really get a laugh out of the "TLH" supremacists. Sure, the settings of the liturgy were nice, but it was essentially an Anglican hymnal that we just mildly reworked... so for it now to be held up as the ultimate most confessional and most liturgically proper hymnal speaks both theological and historical ignorance.

But yeh... as insulting to God as to say that we need certain bylaws and church structures added to the death of His Son to be truly effective it is equally so to make rituals and ornamentation essential.

For myself, I still most love a chanted liturgy, and the motet is my favorite form of music, but that's just a combination of personal taste and having been educated into it. ... Plus, I met my wife after one of the day hours services at the Sem where incense was featured. Of course, being Lutheran, we couldn't just depart in the peace of the Lord, we had to spit up afterwards to critique it. Some people were ecstatic at the use of incense, some were outraged, then there was a much smaller group which wanted to give the other two a "boot to the head" and tell them to grow up. Sadly, besides me and my future wife, there were just two other people in that group.

Doug Hoag said...

Kent and Chris,

You make great points about Gnosticism. I have no doubt that it exists within our own circles, even today. Much of Christian theology today is about escaping this evil and dreadful world and spending eternity in an ethereal la-la land. Life right now really doesn't matter too much, so let's live carelessly, trash the planet, etc...

And even our worship is used as a form of escapism. And although I like various liturgical forms, they were never intended to be the Alpha and the Omega.