Flesh. Its Meaning In The Bible.

April 2026.

The word ‘flesh’, like many other words in Scripture, can mean several things. This article aims to clarify this subject, as many Christians have a mistaken idea of what it means.  An important clarification: “flesh” (sarx) does not mean the same thing everywhere in the New Testament. Confusion here leads to many theological misfires and very false assumptions.

Some Christians believe it means that our human nature is sinful. We are born sinners with a sinful nature, or inbred sin. It is ontological (metaphysics-the nature of existence or being as such). Our flesh, mind, and soul are totally depraved, and as a result, our physical nature, including our flesh, is sinful. Hence, we cannot obey God’s laws. But is sin really a substance and part of our being?

Let’s sort this carefully, without overcomplicating it.

“Flesh” in 2 Peter 2. We are talking about moral corruption, not biology, not ontology

2 Peter 2:10, “But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness…”

Peter already defines what he means:

• “walk after” equals habitual conduct, our pattern in life, our character
• “lust of uncleanness” equals disordered, unlawful desire which is gratified

In this verse, flesh is not the physical body. It is the fallen mode of life dominated by corrupt desire that is gratified unlawfully. Walking after the flesh is yielding to lusts and passions of the flesh that are prohibited. Walking after the flesh is to gratify our lusts and passions unlawfully.

The natural desires, lusts, and passions of the body for food, drink, and intimacy are not sinful in themselves, as some Calvinists and evangelical Christians mistakenly assume. God gave us those desires and passions to use as He intended. Those are some of His blessings for us. But most of us are not satisfied with that arrangement, and we want to gratify our lusts and passions when and how we desire. That is selfishness and sin.

In the 5th century, Augustine, unfortunately, altered Christian Orthodoxy, declaring that natural desires and passions were sinful in themselves. He called this concupiscence. And Western Christianity has been operating in a fog of deception ever since.

Later in the chapter, Peter uses these words:

• sensuality
• greed
• eyes full of adultery
• unceasing sin

All of which reinforce this meaning. Peter’s use of the word “flesh” refers to a way of living prohibited by God, not a substance we inherit or are born with.

Paul’s use of “flesh” (sarx) has multiple meanings

Paul uses sarx in at least four distinct ways, and the failure to distinguish them causes serious confusion.

1. Literal flesh (morally neutral)

• Physical body
• Human existence
• “According to the flesh” equals human descent. For example: “Born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3). None of this has moral content.

2. Flesh as fallen orientation (the main point)

This is what I am addressing.

Examples:

• Romans 8
• Galatians 5
• Ephesians 2

Here, flesh means the self turned in on itself, ruled by disordered or unlawful desires, and opposed to the Spirit and the laws of God.

Paul explicitly contrasts:

• works of the flesh

and the

• fruit of the Spirit

The “flesh” here is ethical and relational, not anatomical or biological.

3. Flesh as sphere of temptation (ambiguous/contextual)

Sometimes Paul speaks of:

• “Weakness of the flesh.”
• “Confidence in the flesh.”

This is not total depravity of the body, mind, and spirit, but:

• human vulnerability
• unredeemed habits
• social and psychological weakness

Flesh is misread and incorrectly understood as “sinful nature.”

This is where Christian theology goes wrong. In some Christian traditions:

• “flesh” becomes a thing inside you
• or an ontological/natural flaw
•  inbred corruption
• or an irresistible force which causes us to sin

But Paul never treats sarx (flesh) as:

• a substance
• a demon
• or a metaphysical implant inherited from Adam

It is a mode of life we can:

• walk according to and gratify it

Or

• crucify
• put off

That only makes sense if it is not deterministic and unconditional. But it makes perfect sense if you have free will to choose who you will serve.

Flesh vs. Body — Paul is very careful

Paul does not equate flesh with body (sōma). In fact:

• the body can be a temple of the Spirit of God
• the body can be offered to God as a living sacrifice
• the body will be raised from the dead

If “flesh equals the body,” resurrection would be incoherent. When Paul condemns “flesh,” he is condemning a selfish way of gratifying our sinful passions and desires, for which we are accountable.

Connection back to 2 Peter 2

Peter and Paul are aligned here.

Peter:

• “walking after the flesh.”
• “sensuality”
• “eyes full of adultery.”

Paul:

• “set the mind on the flesh.”
• “gratify the desires of the flesh.”

Both describe:

• a life oriented toward unlawfully gratifying disordered or unholy desire

• especially sexual, social, and power-related corruption
• often cloaked in religious language

In both cases, the danger is returning to fleshly life after knowing Christ. This ties directly back to the real possibility of apostasy, which many professing flatly deny.

Why this matters theologically

If “flesh” means:

• unavoidable, totally depraved biological impulses, then sin becomes inevitable, and responsibility evaporates. Sin is no longer blameworthy.

But if “flesh” means:

• a chosen orientation of life to gratify the desires and passions unlawfully 

then:

• repentance is meaningful
• perseverance matters
• warnings make sense
• Blame makes moral sense

That is exactly how both Peter and Paul treat it. But that is not how Calvinism and much of evangelicalism teach it.

One final nuance: desire vs. desire

Neither Peter nor Paul condemns desire itself. They condemn:

• epithymia (desire) when disordered and given over to the sinful gratification of those desires
• desire when detached from love, truth, and self-giving

Christian holiness is not the absence of desire, but the reordering of desire so that it pleases God when gratified.

Bottom line

When Paul — and Peter — speak of “the flesh,” they are not talking about:

• skin and muscle
• embodiment
• unavoidable or involuntary impulses, passions, and desires

They are talking about: a lived unlawful orientation toward corrupt desire, chosen and cultivated, and therefore accountable.  And that is why “walking according to the flesh” is treated as:

• incompatible with abiding in Christ
• a path back into the bondage of sin
• spiritually fatal if not repented of

So, what happened?

We will now consider how Augustine subtly shifts the meaning of “flesh” and how later translations hardened it into “sinful nature,” both of which significantly change the stakes. Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Before Augustine: how “flesh” was heard and understood

In the Greek-speaking church (East and West alike before the 5th century):

• Sarx (“flesh”) equals a way of life oriented toward disordered desire unlawfully gratified.
• It is relational and ethical, not ontological, as in a corrupted nature
• Flesh can be:
  • put to death
  • crucified
  • walked away from
  • returned to (which is why apostasy warnings make sense)

Crucially: The flesh is not what you are — it is how you live.

This is how:

• Paul
• Peter
• John
• The Apostolic Fathers all speak.

The body (sōma) is neutral to good. The flesh (sarx) is a misdirected mode of unlawfully gratifying desire.

Augustine’s problem: Paul in Latin plus Pelagius

Augustine inherits Paul in Latin, not Greek. That matters.

The Latin word caro:

• is more concrete than sarx
• more easily heard as substance, actual flesh and blood
• less flexible than “orientation.”

At the same time, Augustine is fighting Pelagius, who emphasizes:

• moral responsibility
• human ability to obey
• the goodness of creation

Augustine’s pastoral fear: If sin is just habit and choice, human pride survives according to Augustine, even if that is not necessarily true, which it is not. Augustine begins to press the meaning of the word ‘flesh’ in a new, unorthodox direction.

Augustine’s subtle shift

To be fair, Augustine never fully says “the body is evil.” But he does something more influential and more damaging. He begins to treat “flesh” as:

• a deeply embedded condition that we have no power over
• inherited through generations
• operating prior to conscious choice
• especially visible in sexual desire (concupiscentia)

This is a key move: Flesh becomes not just what one does, but what one is born with. This is a huge error by Augustine and all those who follow him. This is new. And that is not a compliment to Augustine.

• For Paul, desire becomes disordered through misuse.
• For Augustine, desire is already disordered/sinful at conception.

This transforms “flesh” from a path you walk into a nature you inherit, which is totally sinful and depraved at conception/birth. This is the fruit of Augustine’s belief in what we call Original Sin.

Why does Augustine make this move?

It’s not random. Augustine is trying to explain:

• why people sin inevitably
• Why grace must precede every good act
• Why baptism is urgent even for infants

So “flesh” becomes:

• the carrier of original sin and guilt
• the explanation for universal failure
• the reason perseverance requires irresistible grace

This is the theological soil in which unconditional election and the perseverance of the saints eventually grow.

What gets lost in the shift?

When “flesh” becomes ontological rather than ethical, several things happen:

1. Warnings change meaning

• “Do not walk according to the flesh” becomes “Do not be what you already are and have no choice in it. Do not walk in the flesh, which is impossible not to do”
• Moral exhortation weakens into a paradox and becomes useless

2. Apostasy becomes harder to explain

• If flesh is a fixed nature
• And regeneration replaces that nature, then falling away must be explained as: “You were never really regenerated.”

That move is forced by Augustine’s assumed, but false, ontology.

3. Responsibility becomes fragile

Paul’s logic is: You can live according to the flesh — or the Spirit. You decide.

Augustine’s later readers hear, The flesh lives in you whether you will it or not.

That is a very different anthropology and soteriology. Again, it is hard for me to believe that this is not a damnable heresy that Peter addressed.

6. The translation problem: “sinful nature.”

Now we come to the modern explosion. Many English translations (especially evangelical ones) render sarx as “the sinful nature,” which destroys moral obligation, per ChatGPT.

That phrase (sinful nature) does not exist in Greek, according to ChatGPT. Did you hear that?

What this wrong move by Augustine does:

• turns an activity into a thing
• turns an orientation into an essence/substance
• turns warning into a diagnosis, not a real warning

For example, Paul says, “Those who live according to the flesh…”  Modern reader hears, “Those who possess a sinful nature…” But everyone “possesses” that nature. Paul is talking about how one lives with one’s physical nature. This is a huge error and deception.

7. Why does this directly affect eternal security?

Once “flesh” = sinful nature:

• Sin becomes inevitable and perpetual
• Perseverance becomes automatic and unconditional
• Apostasy becomes ontologically impossible (eternal security)
• Warning passages must be reinterpreted so they no longer warn of real possibilities
• And that puts every Christian at risk who believes these errors

But if “flesh” is the chosen unlawful orientation of desire:

• Sin is serious and not compulsory
• Perseverance is real but not guaranteed
• Apostasy is tragically possible
• Warnings are honest and necessary

And that returns us right back to:

• John 15
• Hebrews 6
• 2 Peter 2

8. East vs. West after Augustine

This is why the Eastern Orthodox Church never follows Augustine here.

They maintain:

• inherited mortality, not inherited guilt
• disordered desire as habit, not substance of our nature
• flesh as orientation, not essence or substance

Which is why:

• They have no doctrine of eternal security
• they preach vigilance without despair
• They can affirm grace without collapsing freedom

9. Final Comments

What Paul and Peter mean by the word “flesh” is this:

the unlawful indulgence and cultivation of disordered desires, according to ChatGPT.

• Augustine slowly internalizes flesh into nature that we are born with, not what we do
• Later theology hardens that into a sinful nature
• Modern readers then misread the apostles and come away with a false and damnable sense of security, which nullifies the warnings in God’s word and puts them at risk of eternal damnation.

And once that shift happens, all the Apostolic warnings begin to sound strange — not because the apostles were unclear, but because the theological framework has changed, making it hard to reconcile the new Augustinian concept with the actual words of Scripture. But that will not deter many Christians from doing exactly that.

I also recommend my article, Two Natures. It is a related topic.