"THE OLD MAN", "THE FLESH" AND "SIN"

“THE OLD MAN”, “THE FLESH” AND “SIN”

There are certain Scripture terms in common use amongst us with which most are very familiar, but to which we should, if challenged, find it perhaps difficult to attach any very distinct or definite meaning, or to clearly distinguish one from another. Such are “the old man”, “sin”, and “the flesh”, the intimate connection between which must be evident enough to all.

I propose to enlarge on the terms a little, in the hope that the moral force of each may be more clearly apprehended. I may say, at the outset, that I am unable to realise much difference between the old man and the flesh. “Old man” may perhaps present a more complete idea than “flesh”. “Old man” describes a certain order of man which can now be designated as old, because the new has appeared on the scene. I am not aware that the expressions ‘old’ and ‘new man’ are found save in Ephesians and Colossians, in both of which the thought of creation is introduced in connection with the new man. We find there the old and new man set strongly in contrast — the one after or according to the lusts of deceit, the other created after or according to God.

I judge that the term ‘man’ speaks of an order of intelligent being set in certain relationships, and endowed with affections suited to those relationships; and this is true in both the old and new man, though in the old all is marred by sin. The term ‘man’ conveys to us the idea of what is outward and evident, an object to be apprehended by the mind or senses, and thus the new man is for the christian the foundation of testimony.

Now, in ‘flesh’ the point of contrast is not ‘the new man’, but ‘the Spirit’ or ‘spirit’; and the idea is thus evidently in distinction from that of ‘man’,

^[p. 280] who can be apprehended as an object. The term plainly conveys to us the thought of what is inward or subjective — a source of thought and feeling and purpose. It is undoubtedly used in a moral sense, and hence presents more than the thought of mere animal existence or nature. A man may be ‘after the flesh’ or ‘after the Spirit’ — may find his springs in the one or in the other. But if in the one, he is, so to say, abstracted from the other. Now it is plain that this abstraction could not be until the Spirit was given. In Old Testament saints faith was evidently a most potent factor, and as they were helped of God there was practical righteousness; but until the cross there had not been such a setting aside of the flesh for God’s glory as that the Spirit could be communicated, and consequently the saint in his experience could not be abstracted from the flesh as to his habitual moral state. He was even as a saint in the flesh. It was the state in which God took account of him, though, withal, helping him in it, or in spite of it.

‘The flesh’ is so habitually used in connection with sin and evil, that it becomes a little difficult to identify the term with an unfallen being like Adam; and yet I think it might be said that “in the flesh” was true of Adam, though, of course, without evil. Evidently the love of God was not shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Spirit given to him, nor did he find his springs of affection, feeling, and thought in the Spirit, though as God’s handiwork he was very good. Now, alas! flesh is characteristically flesh of sin.

I think that we have seen thus far that, while ‘old’ or ‘new man’ presents the idea of an object or order which is evident and observable, ‘flesh’, in contrast to it, gives the idea of a moral spring which governs the mind, temper, and spirit of man, and has its issue in practice. And in this connection we may take up the subject of sin. It is clear that sin exists apart from the state of man or flesh, for the devil sins from the ^[p. 281] outset. It is a principle that has come into the world by man, and that holds man in bondage; and the scripture has defined it as ‘lawlessness’, i.e., creature will impatient of restraint. Now will, as in flesh, may be spoken of in an innocent sense, i.e., as mechanical — the power of volition. A man must will to lift up his hand in order to lift it up, and this is part of flesh or man’s bodily condition. It is not in this sense that we are now speaking of will, but purely in a moral sense — in the sense in which, in its full development, it will be seen in antichrist — defiant disregard of, and opposition to, God.

This is perfectly compatible with a morality (like that of Paul) which claims and obtains the respect of man. The fact is that sin, as to the principle of it, is only known in relation to God, and it is the full revelation of God in Christ that has brought out sin in its enormity. The Lord said, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin”, John 15:22; and the testimony of Christ brought out the fact that hatred of God is an essential and necessary element of sin — God is not only defied, but hated. But this may and does exist in the condition of flesh; hence it is, I think, simple to apprehend the distinction between ‘sin’, ‘the old man’, and ‘the flesh’.