A few months ago, one of my favorite YouTube channels, ‘How to be Christian’, put out a video titled, “What Does ‘Eat my Flesh’ Mean?” — referring to the ‘Bread of Life Discourse’ in John 6. Ferris, the host of ‘How to be Christian’, and who is both outstandingly thorough and pretty hilarious in his videos (did I say it is one of my favorite channels?), makes an equally outstanding (and also hilarious?) point about how words such as ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ can have multiple meanings and contexts in Scripture.
In brief, Ferris refutes the common, problematic claim that the word ‘spirit’ in John 6 can only mean something not physical, and that ‘flesh’ can only mean something purely physical. The crux of the problem, as Ferris points out, is that the terms ‘literal’, ‘physical’, and ‘spiritual’ are often mixed, matched, and misused to interpret ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ in John 6.
Moreover, when looking at Paul’s letters, ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ do not always have exclusive contexts. In Galatians 5:19, Paul lists several ‘works of the flesh — such as idolatry, sorcery, rivalries, and envy — that are not actually physical. And in Gal. 6:1, Paul instructs ‘spiritual’ people to restore a transgressing person in a ‘spirit of gentleness’ — yet all people involved are physical beings.
The overarching point here, and which now leads into Paul’s view of the human person, is that a genuine approach to word semantics really does matter when analyzing Scripture and determining correct context and interpretation. In the case of Paul’s anthropology and how interpreters have attempted to understand it, Soards notes the wide range of views, funny enough, over Paul’s anthropological use of words — such as ‘flesh’, for example (Soards 191).
Part of the problem with any approach to understanding Paul’s anthropology involves trying to psychologize Paul’s state of affairs and essentially ‘get inside his head’ (so to speak). Meanwhile, Paul does not exactly qualify any of his remarks, such as “Here’s what I think about the human condition,” as Soards explains (192). Rather, scholars must first determine when the use of an anthropological term means an actual physical thing, or if it is metaphor for a greater spiritual reality. Again, referring to the term ‘flesh’, Paul appears to use this word to mean a physical being or body in 1 Cor 15:39-40; whereas in Phil 3:4 and Gal 3:3 / 5:16-21, ‘flesh’ is the realm of sin, of the demonic, and not of the spirit (Soards 192, 193).
One claim regarding Paul’s switch-a-roo semantical use of certain anthropological terms is that Paul draws on either the dichotomous Jewish anthropology of soul and body (2 Cor 7:1) or Hellenistic trichotomy (1 Thess 5:23) to comment on the human condition. However, his influences are not a way for him to shift the goal posts about his view on humans, but rather to keep his specific audience in mind when sharing his theology. That is, because Paul clearly has roots in apocalyptic Judaism, which he brilliantly fits well with the gospel he preaches in his letters, his anthropology is largely based on his theology (Soards 193).
Therefore, while other humans’ views on Paul’s views on humans may run abound, or even run amuck, it is important to remember the authors of Scripture, including Paul himself, used various literary devices to communicate their message. And though there may be some room to psychologize Paul’s letters, and even perhaps peel away layers to Paul’s anthropology, what is for certain is that Paul, above all, considered himself an apostle who was proclaiming Christ’s death and resurrection as universal salvation for all humankind. His views on humanity itself are an ancillary talking point to the bigger message at hand: the Gospel.
Works Cited
Soards, Marion L. The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to his Writings and Teaching. Paulist Press, 1986.