Gal. 5:24—Those Who Belong To Christ Jesus HAVE Crucified The Flesh

Introductory Thoughts

One day I came across a discussion online in a question and answer format regarding the topic of Gal. 5:24. It is a topic that I have heard and read over and over again by others where Paul is saying that we must still crucify “the flesh.” Just the other day I heard a sermon on T.V. where the minister was preaching on Galatians, chapter five. And when he got to verse 24, and even verses 13, 16, 17 and 19, he read into verse 24 what is, again, most commonly heard today, stating: “We must crucify the sinful nature.” Clearly, he (like so many) completely overlooked the obvious where Paul says we “have” crucified the flesh, not that “we must.” This minister's own a priori theological biases (as well as that of others of his persuasion) caused him to overlook the obvious, blinding him to seeing anything else.

Many often garner this idea from the fact that, in the Greek, Paul uses the “active” voice to denote something that we do, as opposed to using the “passive” voice in Rom. 6:6 and Gal. 2:20 of something that God does. And so by a sleight-of-hand they will say that Gal. 5:24 has nothing to do with what Christ did once-and-for-all in the past on the cross for us, but is something that we must still do and apply in our daily lives. But is this what the text is really saying? Upon closer scrutiny, we will come to find out that it is not. Upon a biblical exegesis of this text we will come to find out that it isn’t something we are still to do, but just like Rom. 6:6 and Gal. 2:20 (and even Col. 3:9-10 and Eph. 4:22-24) it is something that was done once-and-for-all in the past when we first received Christ—never to be done again. The similarity to be noted in these verses is: what has been completed in the past, not what is still to be done. And that is the point and focus of this discussion. If we fail to see this, we will come up with another interpretation concerning all of this that is not from above.

I have a plethora of commentaries in my library written by good, godly men. And the majority of them mistakenly read into Gal. 5:24 something that we are still to do, even when some of them knowingly realize that the Greek says just the opposite. Because of their theological viewpoint on the old man (or “the flesh”) still residing within the believer, or even on the idea that these verses in Gal. 5:16-18 with regards to “the flesh” still have to do with us as believers, they cannot bring themselves to believe that the “flesh” here in Gal. 5:24 has been once-and-for-all crucified (or killed) in the past, as Paul clearly says it is here and in Rom. 6:6 and Gal. 2:20. So they read into these texts something that even their unsuspecting and ignorant readers or listeners are not aware of, causing their listeners to believe everything they are telling them hook, line and sinker. The traditions and commandments of these men have essentially made the Word of God of no effect to them, as well as to their unsuspecting pupils or flock. And they have unwittingly overturned sound doctrine from God, exchanging it for the convoluted doctrines and teachings of men.

A while back, I read of someone in his book complementing a Pastor who said to his flock with regards to Romans 7: “As long as you are under my charge, you will never leave Romans 7.” What kind of thing is that to say to God's flock? I hope you are just as shocked as I am to hear that! To teach that we must remain under the heavy yoke of Romans 7 is a burden that, to be quite honest, all of us are attempting to NOT remain under. Whether you believe that chapter is talking about the believer, or not, no one is happy to remain in such a state or condition as that of not being able to do the good that they want to do. We want to “leave” that state of being and go on to things that accompany salvation, not to things that demean it or take away from it and which blaspheme the name of God. If you were under my charge, it would be my sincere hope and desire as a Pastor that you rise above Romans 7, taking charge of your life to live a holy life before God.

This is the problem with all of those who want you to believe you are still the Romans 7 man: They want you to view yourself as still a “wretched sinner,” suppressing you to think and live any better. It only creates a defeatist attitude and mindset, not a victorious one. It keeps your mind focused on what you think you are, rather than on what you really are; on the sinner that you are, rather than on the righteous person you are suppose to be. And you have been sold a bill of goods about yourself that is of no benefit to you, blaming everything on an old nature (or “the flesh”) that you will never get rid of, and that Paul says in the Greek in Eph. 4:22 doesn’t get any better…but worse: “The old man waxeth corrupt” (ERV); and an “old man,” by the way, that Paul also says we have completely put off when we first received Christ, and for which we will talk more about later in this discussion.

Now if all that were not enough from this pastor just mentioned above, just listen to this remark by another teacher online with regards to the “flesh” in Gal. 5:17:

The “flesh” of the believer is just as foul as the unbeliever. The sin capacity of the believer never gets better. God never regenerates it. We cannot refine it. It never improves. God never blesses it. Our “flesh” is exactly the same as an unsaved person. God will have nothing to do with it. We dare not ignore the power of the flesh in our lives.

I am absolutely flabbergasted by this statement! So much so that I won’t even mention who they are. They don’t deserve to be mentioned. Yet these are the same pastors and teachers that many Christians are lending their ears to who say that “the flesh,” as denoted above, still remains within us as believers and never changes. As such, it is “just as foul” as the unbeliever’s, it “never gets better,” “God never regenerates it,” “we cannot refine it,” “it never improves,” “God never blesses it,” it is “exactly the same as an unsaved person,” and “God will have nothing to do with it” whatsoever. Like Paul, I just want to scream out from the top of my lungs: WHO HAS BEWITCHED YOU! Are we really no better than the unsaved person, except for the Spirit of God now residing within us? Is this what being “born-again” in our spirit is all about? Is only part of us born-again? Is only part of us regenerated (or a new man), while another part of us still remains unregenerate (or the old man)? I think not brethren. And by the time you are done reading this article, I hope you will begin to have a more positive mindset about yourself of who you now are in Christ—that you are a person entirely “of the Spirit” and no longer “of the flesh.” The believer does not receive something new in the new birth; he himself becomes new. The new man (or new nature) is not joined to or in union with the old man (or old nature); they do not coexist as many erroneously contend. The old man is dead and a new man lives in his place. The created act of God in the new birth has entirely remade the believer’s nature. Before being born-again we were a human being (or old man) with one old fleshly carnal nature prone to sin; after being born-again we are a human being (or new man) with one new spiritual godly nature no longer prone to sin. We were not a dual-natured individual before we were saved; and we are not a dual-natured individual after we are saved. Like Christ, we have one human nature that is infused or imbued with the divine nature (cf. 2Pet. 1:4). Not even Christ had two parts to His human nature. Both His human nature and His divine nature were two separate and distinct entities, creating what is referred to in theology as a “hypostatic” union. And so if we as Christians have two parts to our human nature, then we would be the only persons in history that ever did. No, our spirit is born of God’s Spirit to become children of God who are no longer considered as children born after the flesh. As such, we too like Paul “know no man after the flesh.” We are no longer a natural man but a spiritual man; no longer of the flesh but of the Spirit. Of a truth, those who truly belong to Christ Jesus HAVE crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.

To Be, or Not to Be, In or Of the Flesh—Now That is the Question!

Below is, for the most part, my answer to the question posed by a brother in the forum I mentioned earlier online. This was his question after quoting Gal. 5:24:

“Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” Does this necessarily imply that the “flesh” is dead, or could it mean the “flesh” is on the cross, and maybe not dead yet?

As you can tell by his statement, there has been no small stir as to the meaning of Paul’s words here. It is easy to see why one can be confused, especially when one views this as Paul referring to our old sinful nature. In one breath (verses 13-19), Paul seems to say that we are struggling with this nature, and then in the next breath (in verse 24) he says that such a nature has been crucified. If we still see ourselves with the old heart or nature, then naturally this poses a problem for us. How can it be “crucified” (or dead) when it still seems to be raging on within us? But if we don’t see ourselves with this old heart and nature anymore, as God promised us through Ezekiel (cf. 11:19; 36:26), and as articulated in Rom. 6:6 and Gal. 2:20, then the waters tend to become less muddied for us, except when we come to Gal. 5:13, where Paul tells us not to use our liberty in Christ as an occasion to “the flesh” (or sarx). If believers don’t have the old nature anymore (or the old man), then what about verse 13 which seems to decry that we still do?

No matter what side of the fence you are on, each position has its own set of problems. Albeit, the latter position, as far as I am concerned, is easier to decipher and unravel than the former one. Clearly, according to God in Ezekiel, our old heart of stone has been entirely removed with a new and living vibrant heart of flesh put in its place. And this squares with the idea in the New Testament of us having once-and-for-all put off our old man (the old nature or old heart) in Rom. 6:6, Col. 3:9 and Eph. 4:22; and having once-and-for-all put on the new man (the new nature or new heart) in Col. 3:10 and Eph. 4:24. This is what being “born again” and being “regenerated” is all about. It is no longer being born in the image and likeness of the old man in our first Adam, but being born (again) after the image and likeness of the new man in our Second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ. In Eph. 4:24, Paul also says the new man is created “after God,” or, literally, “like God”; and there are legions of translations and commentaries which understand Paul’s words in this manner.[1] What was lost in Adam has been gloriously restored to us in the person and work of Christ on the cross. No doubt, we do not have two hearts beating to two different drums. We do not serve two masters. And we are no longer slaves to sin or the old nature, but slaves to God and the new nature (Rom. 6:17ff). Any notion that we are still a “slave” to sin and the old sinful nature that Paul (as Saul) says of himself in Rom. 7:14 and 25b, is a misnomer.[2]

Now, one gentleman online attempted to answer the brother’s question mentioned above. And in a canned answer given by most with regards to this subject, he stated how that Rom. 6:6 states what Christ did objectively on the cross for us as a matter of "fact," disassociating ourselves internally from that event, while Gal. 5:24 states what we are still to do "practically" as a result of that objective work of Christ on the cross. One is viewed as only positional or forensic, while the other is viewed as something we must still practically do; one is theoretical, the other experiential. And according to many such individuals, in Romans 6 we are not really in a spiritual and personal sense “united” with Christ in His death, as Paul indeed says we are when he says “we died,” but we are only objectively united with Christ. I have read this position in a few articles, with the emphasis on “a few.” Even Douglas Moo is of this persuasion that nothing has really happened “within” us. Listen to him for yourself:

What I suggest is that the “old self” is a relational and corporate concept. It does not refer to a part of or to a nature within us....What is crucified, then, is...relationship. Our tie to Adam is dissolved; he and the sin and death he represents no longer dictate terms to us....Progress in the Christian life will come as we learn to live out the new relationship God has put us in. We belong to a new corporate structure or regime, dominated by Christ and not by Adam....God, to be sure, is at work to change us from within, as Paul will show in chapter 8 in talking about the work of the Holy Spirit. But at this point [i.e., in the crucifixion of our “old man”] the governing idea is not that God changes us inside, but that he moves us from one regime to another.[3]

Odd indeed, don’t you think? It just goes to show you how far someone will go to deny that our old man or sinful nature (aka, the old heart) has died, and that we have been given a new heart transplant. Here in Romans 6, Paul makes this experience very personal on an internal level, so much so that what has happened to us on the inside gives us the ability to mortify the deeds of our flesh (or our mortal bodies) on the outside (cf. Rom. 6:11ff). We can’t do to our bodies what Paul claims we can now do, unless there has been a change within us. And this is Paul's point! A good-natured tree brings forth…good fruit. A bad-natured tree brings forth, well…bad fruit! We are surely not both trees. We are either one or the other…but not both! Out of the same spring does not come forth both salt water and fresh water. And neither does one pick figs from thorns, or olives from fig trees. To be a good tree that brings forth good fruit there has to be a change internally; otherwise, sin will reign in our mortal bodies as with the rest of world. To be “crucified” objectively, or in theory, does nothing for us internally. We cannot put off the sin that Paul tells us to put off in Col. 3:5, if we have not internally already put off the “old man” in verse 9 that Paul says we have indeed done. The two go hand-in-hand with each other. The former is the result of the latter. We have become a “new creature” (or “new man”) internally, in order that we may bear fruit unto God. Again, only what is going on internally produces what is going on externally. Being only transferred externally from one sphere or realm (or “regime” as Moo put it) into another sphere or realm (or “regime”) does nothing whatsoever for us internally in order to put off the deeds of the flesh that Paul talks about in Romans 6 and elsewhere. We are not “transferred” (at least not here), we are transformed. Christ crucified a man, not a realm or regime. The old realm or regime still exists and is alive and well; whereby our old man (or the corrupt and degenerate person we use to be within) no longer exists. This is the import of crucifixion; it is to entirely get rid of a person; to terminate a person, not a regime. And more particularly, in our case, Christ’s intention was to not crucify our personhood, but our ungodly attributes and evil inclinations towards sin. As such, this is the “old man” or the old nature and “natural man” created in Adam that was crucified in Christ, in order for us to become a new “spiritual” man. Unbeknownst to the Jews and the Romans (and probably even to Satan), they did Christ a favor by killing both Him and us in His person, in whereby a new man with a new nature could also be created in us. Among other things, the crucifixion incurred a two-fold blessing: the atonement for our sin, and the reversal of what Adam had incurred in all of us upon his fall into sin.

Now, granted, some of the works of the flesh in Gal. 5:19-21 are external works of the flesh, but Paul no less lists internal ones as well—“sensuality,…enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying…and things like these” (NASB). And “things like these” include anything and everything that is of the flesh or old nature, whether internal or external. And if there is anything “external” continually going on, it is only because of what is going on “internally” in the person in and of the flesh. And the same goes for those manifesting the fruit of the Spirit as well.

So, it is along this line and vein of thinking above with regards to Rom. 6:6, as it relates to Gal. 5:24, that an answer to the question posed above by the brother online is given by another brother:

It is easy to think that Galatians 5:24 and Romans 6:6 are speaking of the same thing, that is, the fact of the cross. Galatians 5:24, however, does not speak of the fact of the cross; it speaks of the application of the cross.

So, one is just an external “fact,” while the other is the internal “application” of that fact. But, again, is this what Paul is actually saying in these verses? Not at all. It is unequivocally, one hundred percent not what Paul is saying. Contrary to popular opinion, Gal. 5:24 and Rom. 6:6 do indeed go hand-in-hand with each other. They are complimentary to one another, saying the exact same thing. One refers to us as “the old man,” the other as “the flesh.” But either way they are just synonymous terms referring to the exact same thing, and what everyone for the most part believes is: the old sinful nature (which is pretty much a given). And “to speak in general terms, [Romans] chapter six deals with [our] sanctification as the preceding chapters had dealt with [our] justification.”[4] Romans 6:6 and Gal. 5:24 answer the question why we don’t go on sinning that grace may abound, as articulated in Rom. 6:1. It is because we have internally crucified the flesh and sin in our flesh in order that we may be able to no longer serve sin in our members.

As you will soon see, my final response to the brother’s initial question above is quite the opposite of what the majority of Christians believe and teach. But I am not alone in my convictions or beliefs. There are definitely other commentators and well-known theologians out there who would wholeheartedly agree with me on many of these issues, and I refer to them often in my book that deals with all of this, entitled: Created In God’s Image, Not Adam’s! And this is especially true when it comes to us having once-and-for-all in the past put off the old man and put on the new man. To be sure, one was put off, while simultaneously the other was put on. But what about Galatians 5:24, along with its accompanying verses? Now that is an altogether different story for many, even for those such as myself when it comes to verse 13 and who believe the old man (or “the flesh”) was in the past put off and the new man put on. As I said earlier, either view is not without its difficulties. And only a very small handful of believers have seemed to come to the same conclusions that I have come to with regards to Gal. 5:13-24. Granted, they are few and far between, but they are indeed out there. They are just not as vocal as the majority of voices out there that would say just the opposite of what I am about to say to you. But, then again, it is not about being in agreement with the “majority.” It is not about choosing the path of least resistance. It is about choosing the path ordained of God which many, for the most part, don’t care to venture down. Truth, more often than not, has very few friends. So, for now, I guess I will just have to be a fly in the ointment. And if I rub someone the wrong way, then so be it. Sometimes it is good to be “rubbed” the wrong way. It gets us thinking more about some things. Complacency will not do. We must study like we have never studied before to become a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. And that is all that any of us should really care about—bar none!

What is Truth!?

So here is my answer below to the brother’s question above, and even to the answer given by the other brother above that attempted to answer him. I have added many more thoughts and ideas below to that answer; but, for the most part, it is pretty much stated as I presented it on that forum. And like I said, if you have more questions that need more answers on all of this, then I would suggest getting a copy of my book mentioned above. I did include it, by that same title, in an article in this blog. But the book, over 300 pages long, goes into much more detail, leaving pretty much no stone (or passage of Scripture) left unturned. So, with no further ado, let us begin:

Galatians 5:24 and Romans 6:6 are in fact speaking of the very same thing. They both, in the Greek, speak of us as having (in the past) once-and-for-all crucified the old man (aka, “the flesh” in Galatians). In Romans, it is in the “passive” voice, denoting what God in Christ has done for us; in Galatians it is in the “active” voice denoting our part in appropriating that death in us through our faith, with the same being denoted in Col. 3:9-10 of us (now using the “middle” voice) having put off the old man and having put on the new man. Romans just shows us God’s part in all of this, Galatians and Colossians (and even Eph. 4:22-24) show us our part. Again, considered from God’s perspective, the crucifixion of our old man is the gracious work of Christ on the cross; viewed from our perspective, the crucifixion of our old man (or "the flesh") is appropriated in each and everyone of us through our faith (see also Col. 2:12).

Now, here in Galatians 5:24, the Greek “sarx” (flesh) is understood by most Christians as being used in its ethical/moral sense of the old sinful nature (or old man)—and I tend to agree (see also my notes against the “corporate” view or idea that also sees this as just being under a realm or regime).[5]  But what often goes unnoticed here is that the English perfect tense translation “have” of the literal Greek aorist active indicative past tense verb “estaurosan” (“have crucified) denotes that “the flesh” has been once-and-for-all crucified. It is a fact of a completed act appropriated by us, and even in us, by Christ on the cross; it is not something that is still to be done (or applied) by us. The “application” of that completed internal act is seen in the outward suppression of the body of sin in Romans 6:6b (also sometimes referred to as just the body of the flesh, with the Greek word for “flesh” (or sarx) not being used here in its ethical/moral sense).[6] This “body” (Gk. soma) of sin is what is now to be put to death, as expressed also in Romans 8:13, Col. 3:5 and even in Romans 13:14. Additionally, by saying “body of sin,” Paul is not saying that the body is sinful but only that it is the vehicle in which sin expresses itself. And this “body” of sin is also not to be confused with the old man in the previous part of this same verse either (as many mistakenly have stated); for the Greek “soma” for “body” in the New Testament is always translated with reference to a physical body; whether (1) literally, (2) metaphorically of the Church as the body of Christ to denote diversity and unity, or (3) symbolically of the Eucharist which represents the physical blood and body of Christ. In no place in Scripture is it ever used for the immaterial human spirit or the fallen human nature; and neither is it to be understood as a “synecdoche” for the entire being of a man’s spirit, soul and body. To understand this Greek word in this manner is to read into it a meaning that does not bear up under closer scrutiny of the entire New Testament.

Galatians 5:16-18 Mirrors Romans 6-8 in a Shorter Outline Form

Now, of no doubt, the epistle to the Galatians is written to combat those who would rather remain “under the law” as opposed to living under grace (see esp. Gal. 3:2-6). And the tension described in Gal. 5:16 through 18 and thereon, is likewise describing one still living under the law (or in the flesh) as opposed to living under grace. Those still living under the law are “in the flesh,” or still ruled by their sinful nature and thus cannot do the good that the Spirit of God wants them to do in verse 17 (as depicted also in Gen. 6:3).[7] This tension in verse 17 is described of all those still under the law in Romans 7:7-25 as well, where Paul in his unregenerate state speaks of not being able to do the good that he really wanted to do in verses 15-19 (see also footnote below for more thoughts on Gal. 5:17, as well as on the Greek "hina" clause).[8] On the other hand, the regenerate person can now do the good that they want to do. They just now need to see their "flesh" (the old man or old sinful nature) crucified, with the ability for them to now be able to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law as stated in Rom. 8:3. And it is upon seeing our old man personally “crucified” in Rom. 6:6, that Paul says later on in verse 11 to now “reckon” ourselves dead to sin in the members of our bodies, with us now being slaves to righteousness and no longer as slaves to sin (cf. vv. 12-22). In Romans 7:7-25, Paul (as Saul) was still a slave internally to sin (vv. 14, 25); and he said it was the purpose of the Law to show all unregenerate Jews that they needed a deliverer to set them free. This freedom is again spelled out for us in Romans 8, with chapter 7:7-25 being a short interlude, or detour, between chapters 6 and 8. The saint is the person described in Romans 6 and 8 who walks in the Spirit, and not the person described for us in Romans 7:7-25 (and even in chapter 8) who walks after the flesh. And Galatians 5:16-18 refers to this same subject, but only in a shorter outline form and in reverse of Romans 6-8. Gal. 5:16 is seen in Romans 8 (esp. in verses 4 and 9); Gal. 5:17 is seen in Romans 7 (esp. in verses 15-19); and Gal. 5:18 is seen in Romans 6 (esp. in verse 14). I know most people say that these struggles being described here are of the saint, but I beg to differ. As I said before, Paul is depicting one still “under the law” and still in “the flesh,” as opposed to one no longer “under the law” and now “under grace” and who “walks in the Spirit” bearing fruit unto God. In Romans 6 and 8, as well as in Gal. 5:18, if one is “led by the Spirit” they are no longer “under the law” (which is tantamount to still being “in the flesh”). And that is exactly Paul’s point. If we miss that, then we will miss entirely what Paul is telling both the Romans and the Galatians.

Mark Jacobson, a former pastor and current assistant professor of systematic theology at Corbin University in Oregon, agrees! And though we might have some minor disagreements as to what “flesh” means in these verses (see footnote), He succinctly says with regards to Galatians 5:16-17:

“The contrast inherent in the “fruit of the Spirit” and “the deeds of the flesh” was not intended by Paul to distinguish an obedient Christian from a disobedient Christian; the issue goes much deeper. Paul is suggesting that if these works of the flesh characterize the Galatian believers, they have no reason to think that they are saved. Because vv. 16-17 introduce vv. 19-21, very likely the same contrast is intended in these verses.”[9]

So, what we have here is a “contrast” between a believer and an unbeliever; between one who is wholly in the Spirit over and against one who is in and of the flesh; between one who is regenerate verses one who is unregenerate; between one who is under grace verses one who is still under the law. And if one will carefully notice, Galatians 5:16-18 does not necessarily say there is a struggle WITHIN US between the old nature (or our flesh) and the new nature (or our renewed spirit), but a struggle between the flesh (the old nature) and the Spirit (with a capital “S”). To translate the Greek pnuema as “spirit” here with a little “s,” as some (like Lenski) attempt to do in order to make this better fit us as believers, is highly unlikely in view of the Spirit-flesh contrast that Paul also develops elsewhere in Rom. 8:4-6, 9 and 13, and particularly here in Galatians chapter 3, verse 3. No one, for the most part, would argue that in Romans 8 Paul is differentiating between a fleshly Christian and a spiritual Christian, so why should we do so here in Galatians? In Romans 8, Paul is pitting someone wholly of the flesh (or an unsaved individual) against someone who is wholly of the Spirit; an unregenerate individual verses a regenerate individual. And to this almost every acute student of the Bible agrees! So why not understand this same idea here in Galatians as well? Clearly, Paul does in fact have this very same idea in mind here. And it is this idea that I will be elaborating upon in this thesis.

Now with regards to Gal. 5:18, Jacobson again keenly notes,

In many sermons, the speaker has ignored this verse or passed by it so quickly as hardly to be noticed. This is extremely unfortunate, because when rightly understood, it provides the theological background for making sense of the previous two verses. It is the key that unlocks the meaning of this entire section.

This verse is incomprehensible apart from a wider knowledge of Pauline theology with respect to the Spirit, the Law, the flesh and sin....

Thus, the contrast is not between a Spirit-filled Christian and a disobedient Christian. The contrast is what Paul says here that it is—to be led by the Spirit is not to be under the Law. In Pauline theology, Law and Spirit are two realms, two spheres of existence. To be under Law is to be unsaved and bound in sin; to be led by the Spirit is to experience the life and freedom that the Spirit gives. In other words, as was mentioned earlier, to be led by the Spirit is the mark of all the saved; to be under the Law characterizes the unsaved Jew. Elsewhere Paul makes this explicit: “For all who are being led by the Spirit, these are sons of God.” (Romans 8:14)....

Taking all of these aspects into consideration, we realize the profound significance of v. 18. The reason the Galatians can, should and must live in love with one another is that they (Paul is particularly aiming his comments at the Jews) have been freed from their former bondage to sin while they were “under the Law,” denoting the time before they came to be “led by the Spirit.” The old life was characterized by failure to do what Yahweh commanded. Their new life in the Spirit has freed them to live godly lives.[10]

Seeing Paul compartmentalize a few verses like these in Galatians 5:16-18, that were enlarged upon in Romans 6-8, is not unusual for him to do. For example, in Rom. 7:4-6 we see verse 4 in Romans chapter 6 of having become dead to the law in order that we should bear fruit unto God; verse 5 is seen in Romans chapter 7 of when we were in the flesh and how that the motions of sins, which were by the Law, did use to work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death (see esp. 7:23 for same idea); and we see verse 6 in Romans chapter 8 of having been delivered from the Law and having become dead to it wherein we were held so that we should now serve God in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. And even more telling in all of these individual verses in Rom. 7:4-6 are the verb tenses alluded to above in italics. In verse 4, we have become (past tense; aorist active participle) dead to the Law in order that we should bear fruit unto God; in verse 5, we were (past tense; imperfect active indicative) in the flesh with the motions of sins that were at work (past tense; imperfect middle indicative) in our members through the Law, and which had brought forth (past tense; aorist active indicative) fruit unto death; and in verse 6, we have been delivered (past tense; aorist active indicative) from the Law, having become (past tense; aorist active participle) dead to it, in order that we should now continually (present tense; present active infinitive) serve God in newness of spirit. And, yes, this is “spirit” here with a little “s” (many translations bear this out). The only thing that is to be “continually” going on in the believer now is serving God in newness of spirit and bearing fruit unto God. But the person Paul bemoans in Rom. 7:7-25 "continually" (again using the Greek present tense) practices sin; and this is born-out in the NASB translation of those present tense verbs in that chapter. Yet, in Rom. 7:5, Paul says we (including himself) are no longer that person. We “were,” says Paul! But not anymore. Do you see that? You'd think that this would settle this matter once-and-for-all for us. But it hasn’t (so please read my footnote for a little bit more on all of this).[11]

Like Rom. 6:6, many believer’s read into Paul’s words in Gal. 5:24 that we must still keep on crucifying the flesh (or the old nature or old man), but, like I said, the English perfect past tense “have” in Gal. 5:24, in agreement and unison with the Greek aorist past tense used here in this verse (as well as in Rom. 6:6), will not allow for such a convoluted interpretation. It is reading into the text (an eisegesis) something that just isn’t there, rather than forming an exegesis from the text itself. The same is also true in Col. 3:9-10 and Eph. 4:22-24. In both of these instances the Greek aorist past tense is again used, showing that it is not something we are to still do, but something that has already been done by us in the past. Even in Eph. 4:22-24, many translations translate these passages of putting off the old man and putting on the new man as an aorist imperative, or as a command that we are to still do. But these passages in Ephesians corroborate what Rom. 6:6 and Col. 3:9-10 emphatically substantiate of what happened to us when we first learned of Christ and received Him as our Savior. These passages are not a contradiction of terms that only confuse the issue at hand. And the Kenneth Wuest, J. N. Darby, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible translations all give the correct translation of these passages in Ephesians as a “past tense” event. There are some more lesser known translations that do the same thing, and they can be found at: www.biblehub.com. The late reformed pastor, commentator and bible expositor, John Murray, also has some excellent comments with regards to these passages in Ephesians (as well as on Rom. 6:6 and Col. 3:9-10). Please see his book, Principles of Conduct. Also see the fourth chapter in my book (or the article in this blog) on these passages in Ephesians, called: Created In God’s Image, Not Adam’s.

Galatians 5:13 in Relation to Galatians 5:24

Now with regards to the passage in Gal. 5:24, the problem is compounded for us when we read in Gal. 5:13 with regards to the word “flesh” (sarx) here, that the saint is still to deal with an ever-prevalent sinful nature or old man. But that can’t be the meaning here in verse 13 of the word “flesh,” since Paul says it is “crucified” once-and-for-all in the past in verse 24. The word “flesh” in verse 13 can only mean with a reference to our physical bodies, whereas in verses 16 through 24 the word is used in its ethical/moral sense of the old sinful nature. If this is not the case, and it is the old sinful nature that is still living within us, then Paul would have said in verse 24 that we must “keep on” crucifying it. He doesn’t. He says it is (past tense) once-and-for-all crucified, leading us to believe that the one who is still in the flesh (or having the sinful nature) in verses 16 through 19 (as opposed to the one who is walking with a new nature in the Spirit and no longer under the law in verse 18), is going to “continually practice” (using the Greek present tense) the vices listed in verses 19-21. Paul is conclusive here that all such people who continue “practicing” such vices will never inherit the kingdom of God, something that almost all commentators will say is someone who is not born-again at all. This, alone, should tell the story of who it is we are talking about here. It is not someone regenerate, but someone unregenerate who is still in and of “the flesh” and doesn’t “walk in the Spirit.” Do you see the similarity between this and Romans 8? In Romans 8, the one “in the Spirit” gives evidence to that fact that they are not the person being described there who is “in the flesh” (cf. vv. 2-5, 7, 8, 10 and 14). And those “led by the Spirit” in Rom. 8:14 who are “the sons of God” (ibid) and not “in the flesh,” are the same as those being described for us in Gal. 5:18 who likewise are “led by the Spirit” and not under the Law. And so to be “not under the law” is synonymous to being no longer “in the flesh” but being “in the Spirit” and “led by the Spirit.” Do you see this? I think the reason why most of us haven’t seen this is because of what others have always taught us and have just nonchalantly read into these passages. This too has caused us, I believe, to overlook the obvious. But when comparing Scripture with Scripture, we can see how these condensed passages in Gal. 5:16-18 do in fact agree with what Paul also says at greater length in Rom. 6-8. Like I said before, Galatians in many ways "mirrors" what Paul says in Romans, but on a much smaller scale. So, when Paul literally in the Greek says in Gal.5:16: “Walk in the Spirit and you will never, ever (a double negative in Greek, just as in “never perish” in Jhn. 10:28) gratify the lust of the flesh,”[12] he has in mind one still under the law and controlled by his old man or sinful nature that the new man in Christ walking in the Spirit will "never, ever" succumb to again. Why so? Because our old man—who is “the flesh” (or sarx) here in this particular case—IS DEAD! When understood this way, it now makes all the more sense why Paul would so emphatically say that the one walking in the Spirit will never, ever fulfill the lusts of  “OF THE FLESH.” And it is in this light that Rom. 7:1, 4-6, that was mentioned earlier in passing, also now makes all the more sense, when Paul says:

Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over [Gk. kurieio] a man for so long time as he liveth?….Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh [the sinful nature], the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were holden; so that we serve [from Gk. doulos] in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter. (ERV; words in brackets mine).

I like how God’s Word Translation translates the last part of verse 6: “we are serving [or are slaves] in a new spiritual way, not in an old way dictated by written words” (words in brackets mine, which are in the Greek). We are now serving God in a new and living way from a newness in our spirit and not from the old sinful nature (aka, “the flesh”); we “were,” says Paul, but not anymore. We are “led by the Spirit” and are no longer “under the law” (or “in the flesh”). And if our “flesh” (or the old sinful nature) here in Gal. 5:24 (and in Rom. 7:5 above) is “crucified” (or killed) and eradicated, which it is, then it stands to reason why Paul would say in Galatians that we would no longer ever again fulfill its lusts or desires. In this light, all of this now begins to make more sense.

As I noted earlier above, “flesh” in Gal. 5:13 is not to be understood in the same way that “flesh” is understood in verses 16, 17, 19 and 24. And it was not unusual for Paul to use words in his letters, in a given context, that were spelled the same way (such as with the Greek word “sarx” here) but used with different meanings. He does this in other places with the Greek word “sarx,” as in 2Cor. 10:2-4. And he also uses it in differing ways throughout his epistle to the Galatians. In English this is known as an “anastrophe” or an “inversion” of wording. Many words in our own English language are used in this manner when we speak, such as with the word “bear,” etc. St. John often used the Greek word kosmos for our English word “world” in this manner in a few contexts as well.

Now to my surprise, the well-known Greek expositor, A. T. Robertson, agrees with my analysis above of Paul’s use of the Greek word “sarx” in verses 13-24. And so also seemingly does the Amplified Bible’s translation.

Under verse 24, Robertson says, “Paul uses sarx here in the same sense as in verses 16, 17, 19, ‘the force in men that makes for evil’ (Burton).”[13] Notice that Robertson left out verse 13. Evidently, according to him, “flesh” in verse 13 is not used “in the same sense” as in these other verses. He also notes the force of the Greek aorist tense used by Paul in verse 24 as a, “definite event…emphasizing the completeness of the extermination of this evil force and the guarantee of victory over one’s passions and dispositions towards evil.”[14] That is soooo good! It doesn’t get any better than that. And this is the kind of teaching we exactly need to hear. Like I said before, anything else is just utter nonsense and not from above.

The Amplified Bible likewise translates Gal. 5:13 as: “your flesh and opportunity or excuse for selfishness”; verse 16 as: “human nature without God”; verse 17 as: “the flesh (Godless human nature)”; verse 19 as: “the doings (practices) of the flesh”; and verse 24 as: “have crucified the flesh—the Godless human nature.” Clearly, the Amplified Bible sees “flesh” spoken of differently in verses 16-24 than in verse 13. Regardless, like I said before, Paul cannot be telling us to make no occasion for the sinful nature in verse 13, when he just got through telling us that we “have” (past tense) once-and-for-all definitively crucified it in verse 24. Dead men no longer tell anymore tales; let alone influence us or assert their ways over our lives anymore. How can they? They’re dead! And this is what Paul means by us being “crucified” in Rom. 6:6, Gal. 4:24, and even in Gal. 2:20, by the fact that he says in Romans 6, in the context of us having been “crucified,” that "WE DIED." The old man’s death is not a slow process as many mistakenly, naively and ignorantly claim. It is a once-and-for-all definitive matter-of-fact event, never ever to be done again. As the late reformed OPC pastor, theologian, author and commentator John Murray succinctly notes with regards to Romans chapter 6,

At no point is the emphasis of Scripture upon the radical breach with sin more patent and pointed than in connection with the relation which the believer sustains to the death and resurrection of Christ…we have erased the clear line of demarcation which Scripture defines. As a result we have lost our vision of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Our ethic has lost its dynamic and we have become conformed to this world. We know not the power of death to sin in the death of Christ….For when Paul is dealing with the newness of life…what is thrust into the foreground is not the fact that Christ died and rose again for believers…, but rather the fact that believers died and rose again with Christ….It is this abiding relationship to the death and resurrection of Christ…that constitutes the power, the dynamic, in virtue of which believers live the life of death to sin and of the newness of obedience….“We died to sin”—this is Paul’s thesis. He is dealing with death to sin as an actual and practical fact, shall we not say existential fact?….To suppose that the old man has been crucified and still lives or has been raised again from this death is to contradict the obvious force of the import of crucifixion. And to interject the idea that crucifixion is a slow death and therefore to be conceived of as a process by which the old man is progressively mortified until he is finally put to death is to go flatly counter to Paul’s terms. He says “our old man has been crucified” [Rom. 6:6], and not “our old man is in the process of being crucified.”[15]

Murray continues,

...the pivot of the refutation is: ‘we died to sin.’ What does Paul mean? 

He is using the language of that phenomenon with which all are familiar, the event of death. When a person dies he is no longer active in the sphere or realm or relation in reference to which he has died. His connection with that realm has been dissolved; he has no further communications with those who still live in that realm, nor do they have with him....

In accord with this analogy, the person who lives in sin, or to sin, lives and acts in the realm of sin―it is the sphere of his life and activity. And the person who died to sin no longer lives in that sphere. His tie with it has been broken, and he has been translated into another realm....This is the decisive cleavage that the apostle has in view; it is the foundation upon which rests his whole conception of a believer’s life, and it is a cleavage, a breach, a translation as really and decisively true in the sphere of moral and religious relationship as in the ordinary experience of death. There is a once-for-all definitive and irreversible breach with the realm in which sin reigns in and unto death.[16]

Now, if one were to refer to “flesh” in all of the passages in Gal. 5:13-24 as NOT to the sinful nature, but to our physical bodies, then we would again encounter the conundrum of verse 24 which says, without a doubt whatsoever, that “the flesh” has been once-and-for-all in the past “crucified.” Not our skin. Not our body. And not a realm or regime. According to Gal. 5:20f, the “works of the flesh” are inclusive of things like idolatry, strife, jealousy, anger and envy which are attributes, not just the immoral acts of the physical body which (in this case) originate from an immoral disposition; so we can rule out the physical body as “the flesh” which has been crucified in Gal. 5:24. And we can also rule out this as referring to a realm or regime that was addressed earlier, as well as in a footnote. And the same goes for "flesh" in Romans 7-8. In Rom. 7:5, Paul says we "were" in the flesh, but not anymore, ruling out the physical body here as well. Thus, “the flesh” here in Gal. 5:24 can only mean the old self-reliant me; my old spiritual disposition or bent towards practicing sin. This is what died and became changed when my “flesh” became crucified with Christ. On the other hand, Paul never speaks of the physical body as never having to be dealt with again with regards to sin. As already noted earlier in Rom. 8:13, 13:14 and Col. 3:5 (and even in Rom. 6:6bff with regards to "the body of sin"), Paul says it is the one thing that we still need to “mortify,” “put off” and “make no provision for,” making it our slave rather than it being enslaved to sin (cf. 1Cor. 9:27). So, the only explanation that makes sense out of all this is the one that I have presented above. And, thankfully, A. T. Robertson agrees. And he even agrees with my analysis of Paul (as Saul) in Romans 7:7-25 (see my footnote below). Robertson may not agree with me on every jot and tittle, but who does? But at least I have one good “scholar” on my side. One is good. Especially when it is someone who is as highly esteemed as he is. And I think I have Paul and Christ on my side as well. And I even have a host of other scholars on my side when it comes to many of the issues that I have presented above. And so I feel I am in pretty good company, don't you think?

One final thought is to be noted here though in passing with regards to Gal. 5:13. Many, including myself, view Christians as being warned against giving place to their so-called “libertine” tendencies. However, there is no absolute certainty that this is really what Paul has in mind here either, since I am fully aware that this would be out of character with Paul’s theme here in context of dealing with being under the Law/in the flesh verses being under grace. So shouldn’t we rather see Paul’s main focus in all these chapters in Galatians as dealing with still being “under the Law” as taught by the Judaizers, and that verse 13 is only a short caveat on the abuses arising from these Judaizers with regards to those who claim such a “freedom” from the Law? I tend to be just a little more inclined to favor this idea. And if this is the case, then the “libertine tendencies” idea will just have to take a back seat for now.

So maybe, just maybe, using our “freedom as an occasion to the flesh” could very well mean, in context, an occasion for still remaining “under the Law,” which is tantamount to still being “in the flesh.” And to do so would be akin to one having “fallen from grace” (v. 4) and not really being saved in the first place, as most tend to agree here under verse 4. Being “in the flesh” in verses 16-17 sure seems to include this idea of still being “under the Law” according to verse 18, as noted earlier. And in Galatians 5:1, Paul just got through talking about “freedom” from being in a yoke of slavery, which no one doubts here is servitude under the Law, so it could stand to reason (in context) that this is also what Paul is referring to in verse 13. It makes sense. In verse 13cff, it is through “love” that we “serve” (or are “enslaved”) to one another, not by being under the Law. Not that we are lawless, but being strictly under the Law (and not under grace) is not how we “serve” God or one another (cp. the Greek verb douleuo for serving as slaves in verse 13c through “love,” in juxtaposition to the Greek noun douleia for serving as slaves in verse 1 under the “yoke” of the Law). So, in context, being “in the flesh” is synonymous to still being “under the law.” And being “under the Law” only “arouses the sinful passions” of the one still in the flesh (Rom. 7:5); it “takes opportunity through the commandment to produce sin” (Rom. 7:8, 11); and only incites us to sin all the more (Rom. 7:8). And so when those of us who belong to Christ have crucified our “flesh” or “old man” on the cross with Christ (Gal. 5:24; Rom. 6:6), we have also died to the Law in order to “serve” another, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ. And Paul also gives the analogy of us dying to the Law and to the flesh in the death of Christ in Rom. 7:1-6, in order that we might “serve (Gk. douleuo) in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter” (v. 6b). In Gal. 5:15, again, in context, biting and devouring one another is only what occurs when one is a legalist, still under the Law and not under grace. Ironically, the law, which the Judaizers were trying to use to bring about righteousness and holiness, actually ends up in creating an opposite effect: animosity, dissension and strife. And, again, the reason is that the law doesn’t deal with the heart of an individual, but only with the outward performances of an individual. The loveless life is a life lived on the level of animals, with a concern only for oneself at no matter what the cost to others. And this animalistic behavior is brought out in the Greek words that Paul uses here.

Concluding Thoughts

In conclusion, all of this should give us cause for pause in what has been said. As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. We are what we believe, brethren. Our theology determines our practice. And someone also once wisely said, “Satan knows that no one acts in a way that is inconsistent with how he perceives himself.” Satan will take advantage of our ignorance. And ignorance is not bliss. If we have garbage in, garbage inevitably will only come out. But if the inside of our cup be clean, which it is, then the outside will be clean as well. We are washed. We are clean, needing only our hands and feet to be washed. It is truly for victory that Christ has set us free. Go in this freedom, possessing your vessel to become a vessel of honor. Indeed, it is glorious to be a Christian; but is in inglorious in how we must arrive at that by mortifying the deeds of our bodies to be worthy of that name. Don’t be a Christian in name only. Be a Christian in word and in deed so that you do not blaspheme the name of Christ and of God. And I believe that what I have presented above will release you to serve Christ, as it has for me, like no other teaching out there has ever done for me.

For the person who still believes they have the old sinful nature, you have a lot of hurdles to jump over before you come to the position I have come to as articulated above. But once you no longer see yourself as the person Paul refers to in Romans 7:15-19 (or even in Gal. 5:17), only then will you begin to find yourself climbing to new heights and soaring like an eagle. You will run, and not be weary; you will walk, and not faint. You will be all that you can be in God’s army: a mighty warrior; a valiant fighter; one who perseveres in the faith; one who fights the good fight of faith. The sins that use to so easily beset you will no longer beset you anymore. As such, you have truly come to know what it means to be free in Christ. It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. And it is my sincere hope and desire that you walk in this freedom, in this light. For he who the Son sets free, is truly free indeed. He really is!

Like a bird you have felt trapped in a cage. But Christ has swung the door wide open for you. Now begin to fly. Don’t doubt you are free. You are no longer a caged bird. Don’t believe you are still who you use to be with just Christ dwelling next to you. You are a new man in absolute union with Christ. You are a new creature in Christ. The old has passed away; behold, all things have become new! Apply God’s Word in your life in a way that you have never applied it before; in the way that it has been presented to you in this article. These words are not meant to imprison you, but to give you life; not to suppress you, but to lift you up out of the quagmire of all the false teaching that has held you down for so long. And it is my sincere hope and desire that God will give you the eyes to see and the ears to hear what the Spirit of God is truly saying to the Church here. We need a word to us that says, “take up your bed and start walking.” This “Word,” that I proclaim to you, I believe is it; proclaiming liberty to the captives and healing to them that are bruised. And once you begin to “know” this, only then will you begin to “reckon” it as so as Paul says in Rom. 6:11. To “know” is to “reckon.” But what we don’t know we cannot reckon. If you believe you are more alive to sin than dead to it, then, of course, you are going to succumb to it. But if, like Paul, you can say, “We who have died to sin, how can we live in it any longer?” then you have begun to know the secret, and even the mystery, to the glorious Christian life. Who has hindered you brethren that you should not obey the Truth? To not walk in this Truth? This persuasion, beloved, comes not from above. And I am afraid that this little leaven has pretty much leavened the whole lump of the Christian community of believers. But get rid of this insidious leaven, and you will be a vessel meet for the Master’s use, ready to punish every act of disobedience once your obedience is complete (cf. 2Cor. 10:6).

Martyn Lloyd Jones has so poignantly stated,

If only every true Christian in the world today realized that this new creation, this new man, this new being, was within him, the whole Church would be revolutionized! All our failures, all our sins, are ultimately to be traced to the fact that we do not realize as we should what God has done to us, and the character and the nature of the new man, the new life, that He has put within us…. 

The Christian is not the “old man” improved. The Christian is not a man who is trying to be better than he once was. Not at all! Something absolutely new is put in at the center―“created”!…The Christian is entirely different! Absolutely new! We are to understand, then, that God has done in our souls the same thing as He did when He created the world and when He created man. The “new man” is indeed a new creation!…So that we find the apostle Peter saying that “we are partakers of the divine nature.” The truth is so staggering that we can scarcely receive it. And is not the Christian Church in the state she is today because we do not realize what we are and who we are?…And I am emphasizing it for this good reason: the realization of it is the high road not only to a true understanding, but to the true enjoyment of the Christian life. Indeed, I will go further. This is the high road to revival![17]

All I can say here to this is, “Amen to that!”

P.S. This article can also be purchased in book form at Lulu.com by clicking on the picture in the right-hand column, subtitled: Our Flesh Crucified. It is at a substantial discount through Lulu Press.



Footnotes:

[1] See R. C. H. Lenski, John Murray, John MacArthur, Kenneth Wuest, Martyn Lloyd Jones, Herman Ridderbos, A. Skevington Wood, Albert Barnes, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, and a host of others. The list just goes on and on. Granted, some of these men (but not all) see us still with the old nature as well as the new nature. But they all agree that the new man is created after God’s image, affirming that what was lost in Adam has been restored to us in Christ. The majority of translations also translate the words “after God,” as after the image of God. See NIV, ESV, WEY, WBS, ISV, NLT, NASB, KJV, HCSB, NAS (1977), ERV, etc. And Col. 3:10 also affirms this.

To be fair though, some translations and commentators read into these words what is created “by God,” rather than what is created “after God’s image.” But they are a very small minority. In juxtaposition to this latter group, Paul would not tell us to be “imitators of God” (Eph. 5:1) if we were not somehow created to be like God in all holiness and righteousness. We cannot be what we are not born to be. On the other hand, we are “born again to a lively hope.” Good trees bring forth good fruit. And we are now “good” trees. My book, Created In God’s Image, Not Adam’s! deals more extensively with all of this.
[2] There are many that agree with my thoughts concerning Paul (as Saul) in Romans 7:7-25. Most notably, there is: the early church Fathers, Martyn Lloyd Jones, Adam Clarke, Herman Ridderbos, Anthony Hoekema, Robert Gundry, Fredric Godet and Douglas Moo, to name just a few. The Greek expositor, A. T. Roberson, likewise agrees. He succinctly comments under Rom. 7:15: “There is a great deal of controversy as to whether Paul is describing his struggle with sin before conversion or after it. The words “sold under sin” in verse 14 seem to turn the scale for the pre-conversion period.” Under verse 18, Robertson also writes: “the unregenerate man ‘sold under sin.’” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Epistles of Paul [Baker Books: Grand Rapids, 1931]; vol. 4, p. 369). Words in italics mine for emphasis.
[3] The NIV Application Commentary, Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), p. 207. Italics and words in brackets mine.
[4] John Murray, The New International Comm. on the N.T., The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1968), vol. 1, p. 211. Words in brackets mine.
[5] See my footnote #9 below, with regards to Mark Jacobson in the second paragraph and following, who argues for a “corporate” view or idea that sees the “old man” and “new man” denoting not who we are morally or ethically within on an individual basis, but only who we are corporately as it relates to our outward environment and physical relationships to others around us—whether to the world and to Judaism, or to the Church. I give many examples from Scripture on how this position is just not tenable. One thought will suffice: As I said earlier in the body of this message, Christ didn’t crucify a realm, a regime, an age or a sphere; He crucified a man! He crucified the degenerate person we use to be inside, in order that we can now be holy like Him. Christ sets sinners free from being morally corrupt, to becoming morally incorrupt. External justification acquits us of all sin (we are saved by grace); internal sanctification delivers us from all sin (to work out our salvation). And it is this latter work of Christ’s that is at the forefront of Romans 6, Colossians 3:9-10 and Ephesians 4:22-24. Our tree has been made good internally, in order that our outward fruit become good as well.
[6] Paul uses the Greek word “sarx” this way in many instances in Galatians (Gal. 1:16; 2:20; 4:13-14, 23, 29; 6:12, 13). It is specifically used by Paul with a reference to Christ’s physical body of flesh in Col. 1:22. Countless more examples could be given.
[7] Keil and Delitzsch say here with regards to Gen. 6:3, “Men, says God, have proved themselves by their erring and straying to be flesh, i.e., given up to the flesh, and incapable of being ruled by the Spirit of God and led back to the divine goal of their life” (biblehub.com; public domain). They also note how the Hebrew word for “flesh” here, “is used already in its ethical signification, like σάρξ [sarx] in the New Testament, denoting not merely the natural corporeality of man, but his materiality as rendered ungodly by sin” (Ibid). Transliterated word in brackets mine; italics mine for emphasis.

Matthew Henry also remarks on Gen. 6:3: “It is the corrupt nature, and the inclination of the soul towards the flesh, that oppose the Spirit’s strivings and render them ineffectual….When a sinner has long adhered to that interest, and sided with the flesh against the Spirit, the Spirit justly withdraws his agency, and strives no more” (Comm. on the Whole Bible). You might as well of thought you were reading a commentary on Romans 7 and Gal. 5:16-18. But we're not, we are talking about the ungodly who are in the flesh that continually resist the Spirit, whether through the revelation of creation or the proclamation of His Word.

W. Roberts, in the Pulpit Commentary, likewise says on Gen. 6:3: “the striving of God's Spirit comes to an end not because God's willingness to help comes to an end, but because HUMAN NATURE SINKS BEYOND THE POSSIBILITY OF HELP.”

Adam Clarke also writes on Gen. 6:3: “It is only by the influence of the Spirit of God that the carnal mind can be subdued and destroyed; but those who willfully resist and grieve that Spirit must be ultimately left to the hardness and blindness of their own hearts, if they do not repent and turn to God.”

Additionally, this idea of even the ungodly “striving” against God is seen in Isaiah 45:9: “Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!” Here we see men wholly of the flesh striving against the Spirit and kicking against the pricks, just as Paul (as Saul) was accustom to doing. Someone has once said, “Things contrary will vent their contrariety in mutual strife.”

And furthermore, if in 1Pet. 3:18-19 the translation is “Spirit,” rather than “spirit,” and refers to the Holy Spirit preaching through Noah to the ungodly, then this too builds a case for the idea of the Spirit of God striving with man to repent and do good, rather than the evil they would do. And even if “Spirit” is “spirit,” referring to Jesus’ spirit who preached to the spirits in prison, the same idea is to be retained of God (or Christ) still contending with unregenerate individuals. Regardless of all this, “the Spirit” in Gal. 5:17 is synonymous with “the Word” (or the “Spiritual” Law of God in Rom. 7). As John Murray succinctly states in his commentary under Rom. 7:14: “Paul’s usage will show that the word ‘Spiritual’ is derived from the Holy Spirit. ‘Spiritual words’ (I Cor. 2:13) are words taught of the Holy Spirit. The ‘Spiritual man’ (I Cor. 2:15) is the man indwelt and controlled by the Holy Spirit. ‘Spiritual songs’ (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) are songs indited by the Holy Spirit. ‘Spiritual understanding’ (Col. 1:9) is the understanding imparted by the Holy Spirit.....Hence the statement, ‘the law is Spiritual’ refers to its divine origin and character. Since it is Spiritual it is possessed of those qualities which are divine―holy, just, and good” (The Epistle to the Romans, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], vol. 1, p. 254). So, the the same is true of those mentioned in Galatians. Paul there is pitting a natural or fleshly person, against a person who is in and of the Spirit; one who keeps the Law of God in a legalistic manner under Moses, as opposed to those who don't under Christ.
[8] Some say of Romans 7:7-25 that Paul is saying, left to “himself,” he cannot do the good that he wants to do. And in no uncertain terms, Paul is saying that he doesn’t do it. But if this is Paul as a believer, then He’s not by “himself” as many erroneously read into this in order to weaken the force or idea of what he is truly talking about; for the Spirit of God, according to these same individuals, is actually residing within Paul. And yet, even for all this, Paul emphatically says he cannot do the good that he wants to do? As A. T. Robertson says of Paul (as Saul) here: “Sin has closed the mortgage and owns its slave.” Sin is winning the day here. This person Paul is describing here is indeed doing what he is doing left to “himself” and without the Spirit. This is why he doesn’t do the good that he wants to do. And the same goes for the person Paul is describing for us in Gal. 5:17. There is no margin for error here. There is no room for an interpretation that says of the believer of these verses, “left to ourselves we will inevitably fail”; for the persons Paul is describing in Romans 7:7-25 and Galatians 5:17 are doing just that, even supposedly with the Spirit. No, Romans and Galatians are talking about those who fail miserably who have not the Spirit of God, yet nevertheless are being incited by God to repent and conform to His will, either by the proclamation of His Law (or His holy Word) or by some other means. And, by the way, since we are talking about those who are still under the law, then “cannot do,” “prevented from doing,” “you don’t do,” “keep you from doing” and “unable to carry out” in many translations of Gal. 5:17 is not so out of character here. To do “maybe” otherwise, as denoted by the subjunctive mood in the Greek, is contingent upon being no longer under the Law but under grace. And Paul basically says the same thing in verse 16 when, again using the subjunctive mood, says that we “may” never fulfill the lust of the flesh (or, the lust of the old sinful nature) if we are those who are continually walking in the Spirit, as opposed to those who continually walk in the flesh in the first part of verse 17, and even of those who keep practicing the sins of lust mentioned in verse 21. The ones who “keep practicing” the sins of lust that Paul mentions in verses 19-21, are in fact the same individuals who “continually” lust in the first part of verse 17, and for whom Paul says will not inherit the kingdom of God (or, are not saved).

And so it is in this light that the Greek “hina” clause in the second part of verse 17, translated either “in order that” or “so that,” does not denote the “purpose” of the Spirit and the flesh “in order that” we do what either wishes as Vincent, Alford, and others argue. This could only be more likely if we were talking about a believer here, as they and others of their persuasion understand it. We are not. Paul is pitting believers against unbelievers; those in the flesh (or under the law) verses those in the Spirit (or under grace). Therefore, the Greek hina is the “result” of one being entirely in the flesh, “so that” they may not keep on doing that which they wish to do (as noted in the overwhelming majority of translations), just like Paul says of himself as an unbelieving Jew in Rom. 7:15ff. In Rom. 7:15 it is, “For what I do not wish, this I continually practice”; whereas in Gal. 5:17 it is, “So that you may not keep on doing those things you wish.” The similarities are striking. Dare I say, “the same?” It is not true that the “wishing” or “willing” just applies to one side of the fleshly side of the person in Rom. 7:15, and that in Gal. 5:17 the “wishing” or “willing” applies to both the fleshly side and the spiritual side of a person. Both verses are expressing the exact same thing of that which is continually preceding from only the fleshly side of not being able to do good, as all those who are still unsaved sinners cannot do according to Rom. 3:12.

Some would question why Greek expositor J. B. Lightfoot would say that the “lust” (or the watered-down “desire”) here in verse 17 is tied just to the flesh, and not to the Spirit; for he doesn’t give any explanation as to why. But I believe I can explain why! The action of the verb “lust” in verse 17 is the result of the same person of “lust” that is just described for us in verse 16 (and even in verse 24), using the same Greek word, with one only being a verb and the other two being a noun. In other words, the continual (Gk. present tense) “lust” of the flesh in verse 17 is akin to the singular noun “lust” (or the sin principle) within the person of the flesh described in verse 16 (for the person of the flesh in verse 17 is, no doubt, the same person of the flesh in verse 16), and this “action” of this same sinful individual in verse 16 is connected by the Greek conjunction gar (or “for) that begins verse 17, in order to explain this “action” of this sin principle in this person of the flesh in verse 16. Therefore, in light of all this, these continual lusts are NOT the so-called “desires” of the Spirit in verse 17, as many mistakenly assert, but the continual and rampant “lust” of the person of “lust” that Paul begins to describe for us in verse 16, and then later again in verse 24 which is crucified in the believer. Verse 17 literally reads, “the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit [is] against the flesh.” This verse does not say the Spirit lusts or desires against what the flesh lusts or desires after, but that the flesh is in fact doing all the lusting here. And so Paul just adds here that the Spirit of God is “against” all such lusting. And this is exactly the reason why verse 17 ends with, “that you may not keep on doing those things you wish,” because it is the flesh (without the Spirit) that is winning the day here. Once again, we can readily see that Paul is indeed saying the very same thing that he says of himself in his unsaved state in Romans 7:15ff. The continual action of the present active indicative singular verb epithumeo (lust) of the flesh in verse 17 (denoted also as “the works of the flesh” in verse 19), corresponds with the accusative feminine singular noun epithumia (lust) of the person of the flesh in verse 16, along with the dative feminine plural noun epithumia (lusts) of the person of the flesh in verse 24, that, again, Paul now says has been crucified in all those who belong to Christ. And this is why, I believe, Lightfoot and a small handful of others saw the verb “lust” here in verse 17 being described as that of the flesh, and not of the Spirit at all. In this immediate context it is the lust/lusting of the flesh. The “lust” in verse 16, which no one doubts is the “lust of the flesh” (and not that of the Spirit), is the same “lusting (or “lusts”) of the flesh” in verse 17 (and likewise not that of the Spirit). Nothing could be more clearer to us here. The immediate “context” once again wins the day here and takes precedence over any a priori theological biases. And so if this is in fact the case, which it no less seems to be, then this also makes a strong case for the Greek verb epithumeo to be understood in its more common usage of denoting inordinate affections and desires, rather than just ordinary desires that are not necessarily sinful. The present tense verb to “not keep on doing” those things that one really wishes to do in the latter part of verse 17, is tied to the “continual lusts of the flesh” in opposition to the Spirit in the former part of verse 17, and even as far back to the “lust” or the sin principle of the person in the flesh described at the end of verse 16, and then later again in verse 24. Understood this way, all of this now begins to make more sense in understanding this as an individual who is still under the Law and not under grace. And understood this way, there is no twisting of the Scriptures, no arguing over words, or reading something into this in order to make it all fit the struggles of the believer. Translated literally verbatim, just as Paul words it, leaves us with no other conclusion than to believe that he has in mind the saints as opposed to the aint’s. As Adam Clarke succinctly notes here of those in or of the flesh in verse 17, “You are convinced of what is right, and ye wish to do it; but, having abandoned the Gospel and the grace of Christ, the law and its ordinances which ye have chosen in their place afford you no power to conquer your evil propensities. It was on this ground that the apostle exhorted them, v. 16, to walk in the Spirit, that they might not fulfill the lust of the flesh; as without the grace of God they could do nothing. Who can suppose that he speaks this of adult Christians?” (Comm. on the Whole Bible). Clearly, Adam Clarke didn’t understand the one here in the flesh as being a mature Christian, but one who was still wavering of whether to be under the law or under grace, which is also what the epistle of Hebrews is addressing.

Additionally, Herman Ridderbos keenly notes here on Gal. 5:17 with regards to the Greek "hina" clause, “One can take the ina [hina] as either final or consecutive. If the former is accepted, one must ask who it is that postulates this purpose. And, presumably, one would have to think, then, of the flesh as well as of the Spirit. However, it is very difficult, logically, to regard those two opposing principles as the common subject, both together realizing this purpose. Hence we prefer the idea of the consecutive use although it is not an original use, and is limited even in the New Testament” (Commentary on Galatians, n. 9, p. 203; words emphasized and in brackets mine). In other words, Ridderbos is arguing for the idea that the antecedent subject noun of the verb “lusting” is the flesh, not the Spirit. And as everyone educated in grammar knows, you can always tell the subject of a sentence by understanding who are what is doing the action of the verb. The “flesh” and the “Spirit” are not both the subject of the sentence here. They are both nouns, but they are not both the subject. The “Spirit” in verse 17 here is taking a more subordinate position to the flesh, and this also explains why that which one wishes to do they keep on not doing, just like Paul (as Saul) also says of himself in Romans 7:15ff. Of no doubt, Paul is being consistent here in both Galatians and Romans.

When it comes to this “hina” clause in verse 17, one’s “theology” really comes into play here in how one determines how “hina” should be interpreted. And if we are talking about just a believer here, then I can fully understand (absent from the immediate context) how some would view “hina” as the “purpose” of the flesh as well as of the Spirit (or even “spirit”), and not just the “result” of one being wholly in the flesh as all unregenerate individuals such as the Judaizers.

In opposition to Vincent, Alford and others though—Moulton, Ellicott, Evans, Lightfoot and A. T. Robertson all agree that Paul is using hina here in the “consecutive” sense, and not in the sense of “purpose.” Robertson, in speaking for the rest, says, “Lightfoot admits the consecutive force of ina [hina] in Gal. 5:17; 1Ths. 5:4. He is correct in both instances” (A Grammar of the Greek NT in the Light of Historical Research, p. 998; emphasis and word in brackets mine). And by “consecutive” force is meant what follows as a “result” or outcome between the opposition of the Spirit and the flesh, and not what is the “purpose” or desire of both the Spirit and the flesh. And I tend to agree, though more for theological reasons than being any expert on the Greek! And if the “experts” can’t agree, where does that put the rest of us? It puts us in the place of determining who it is that has more exhaustively and “logically” studied all of this out, and then base our opinion pretty much upon that.

Extensive historical research, both biblical and secular, led Robertson to conclude that the Greek conjunction hina, though rare, can include the idea of “result.” And he makes note of a lot of these examples in his book that was noted above. The list of all the references is just too exhaustive to mention here. But he didn’t use to believe this way. And neither did Moulton. But upon further contemplation and study, he (as well as Moulton) had to regretfully acquiesce. And in Robertson's book cited above, he mentions this unfortunate earlier belief of his being published some 26 years earlier in his Short Grammar of the Greek Testament (1908 ed.). His other book cited above was published later in 1934.

So, as I have said elsewhere in this discussion, “Will the real Greek authority please stand up!” But I really do believe Robertson was being more objective here in his opinion, rather than being subjective. And this seems to be noted in his change of mind from what he had earlier published. As I said, one’s theology really does come into play sometimes when determining how Greek words are being used. For this we must all be very careful. As Robertson also notes, “The commentator must have grammar, but he needs the grammar of the author on whose work he is making comments” (Historical Research, p. 998). And the “grammar” understandably noted by Robertson, that was used in Paul’s day, supports the idea of hina being used as “result,” not just as “purpose”; ecbatic, and not just telic. Robertson thus concludes: “So, then, we conclude that ina [hina] has in the N. T. all three uses (final [telic], sub-final, consecutive [ecbatic]).” (Ibid., p. 999; words in brackets mine). And Robertson adds here that, “Ellicott had defended just this principle, and he is the most severely grammatical of commentators” (ibid., p. 998; emphasis mine). Arndt and Gingrich, Dana and Mantey, F. Blass, and Abbott-Smith all understood as well that the consecutive form of hina as “result” is to be accepted. And Dana and Mantey in their Manual Grammar of the Gk. NT on pages 249 and 286, along with Arndt and Gingrich in their Greek-Eng. Lex. of the NT on p. 378, likewise note with those cited earlier above that Gal. 5:17 denotes “result” and not “purpose.” So now I leave it up for YOU to “logically” decide.
[9] Mark A. Jacobson, Spirit-Powered Living: A Positive Interpretation of Galatians 5:16-18, Oct. 10, 2011. Accessed online 6/12/2017. Words in italics mine for emphasis. In reading his article online, Jacobson says that “flesh” in verse 13 is referring to the sinful nature, for he writes: “In v. 13, it has the connotation of the sinful nature, while in [v. 24] 'flesh' appears to be another way of referring to the 'old man' of Romans 6:6, since both have been crucified. If so, 'flesh' in Gal. 5:24 represents the life of the Galatians before coming to Christ” (ibid). But I would take issue with him with regards to “flesh” in verse 13 being the sinful nature; for as I have said all along in my article, how can Paul say “the flesh” has been once-and-for-all crucified in verse 24 (which I believe to be the sinful nature here), and then in verse 13 say it is still something that we must contend with? “Flesh” in verse 13 can only be referring to the lusts of our physical bodies that still need to be mortified and put off, as noted in Rom. 8:13; 13:14 and Col. 3:5 (or maybe even returning to being under the Law and never being under grace at all, as noted earlier in the main body of this discussion). Is it maybe that Jacobson views the word “flesh” differently in verse 13, than he does in verse 24, with the latter to be also included with verses 16, 17 and 19? It seems so. In quoting Charles Cousar, he leans towards the view of Cousar of those still under the law (or in or of the flesh) as of the “old age” or “sphere,” as opposed to those of us who are of the “new age” or “sphere,” and wherein these verses are not necessarily talking about a disposition within us, of either being “fleshly” according to Rom. 7:14 with a sinful nature or “spiritual” with a new holy nature; for Cousar also says in his commentary: “In other contexts both are used as anthropological terms, but not in these verses (5:16-24)” (Galatians, p. 136). And verse 13 according to Jacobson (and possibly even according to Cousar), is one of those “contexts” in which it is used as an “anthropological term” of the sinful nature. But such individuals have got it all turned around. And it seems to me that they do this in order to correctly get us off the hook that we are the person of the flesh in verses 16 through 24, but still a person with a sinful nature in verse 13.

This view of Jacobson and Cousar, on verses 16 through 24, is very similar to the view held by Douglas Moo of the “corporate” view of the crucifixion of the old man in Rom. 6:6, where Moo believes Paul is not talking about a disposition “within us” but just a change that occurs to us objectively, not subjectively; a transfer from being under one realm or sphere, to being under another realm or sphere; to coming away from one environment under the rule and sway of Satan, to coming under another environment of the rule and sway of Christ. It is sometimes also referred to under another guise as the “redemptive-historical” view held by Herman Ridderbos in his commentary on Romans, being very similar to Moo’s “corporate” view or idea, but with some minor differences; for Ridderbos views the new man not only from the redemptive-historical perspective of coming out from under the community of Judaism and into the Christian community, but also from the anthropological perspective of the person themselves; in other words, both corporately and personally (see p. 223ff in, Paul: An Outline of His Theology).

Like I said, this “corporate” view is a position taken by Moo (in his commentary on Romans) which, like Jacobson and Cousar, seems to be in order to justify the idea that we still have the old corrupt nature within us, alongside the new incorrupt nature also within us who is in union with the Spirit. So Moo conveniently reinvents the wheel here with regards to the old man, that Paul is NOT talking about something internal but only external. It is a strange view indeed, considering the fact that Paul says in Romans 6 of what has happened to us when we were spiritually baptized “in” Christ is very personal and internal (“we died!” says Paul), so that we can now put off sin in our fleshly mortal bodies—and the same goes for the passages in Galatians. In Galatians, the works of the flesh vs. the fruit of the Spirit are the results of who a person is “internally,” not externally. One is born of the flesh and “fleshly” (or wholly of the flesh and sold under the sin), like Paul (as Saul) also elaborates of himself on an internal level in Rom. 7:7-25; the other is born of the Spirit and “spiritual,” like Paul and all Christians in Romans 6 and 8. One is completely and unreservedly in and of the flesh, and therefore continually walks after the flesh or the law of sin in his members; the other is completely and unreservedly in and of the Spirit, and therefore continually walks after the Spirit or the law of the Spirit of life in his members. How anyone can say that Romans 6 is not very personal and internal, is beyond me. Death has become us in Christ, so much so that we can now walk in newness of life and not in the oldness of the letter. Like I said above, Paul’s argument in Romans 6 is that “we died” (v. 2; see also vv. 3-5, 7-8, 11). This isn’t just a metaphor as some mistakenly assert. This isn’t just a change of our outward environment on a “community” level; it is a spiritual inward change on a personal and “individual” level. It is not objective but subjective; not positional or forensic but practical. And it surely wasn’t figurative for Christ, so why should it be for us? When Christ died a real death to the old man and to sin in His flesh, we too died a real death to our old man and to sin in our flesh when we spiritually appropriated that death in us through our faith, even as Gal. 5:24 asserts. We have been freed within, in our flesh, in order that we may live lives free from sin without in the members of our physical fleshly bodies (cf. Rom. 6:11-13ff). As I've said elsewhere, Christ didn’t die to, or crucify, an age, sphere or realm. He crucified a person—a man! In Christ's human nature He personally became us as the old man with all of our sin (or as the “natural” man in 1Cor. 2:14)—and crucified him! In Romans 6, Paul is not dealing with our physical death and resurrection; he is dealing with our internal spiritual death to sin and our resurrection to Spiritual life.

Additionally, Christ could not have crucified our old man in us if He didn’t in some sense “personally” become us on the cross with all of our sin in His human spirit, soul and body; otherwise, Christ would have been a redeemer of bodies only and not of souls. No, Christ who personally knew no sin was actually made to be sin (or a Scapegoat) for our sin which was placed in and upon Him (see additional note below ¹), in order that we might personally become the righteousness of God in Him (cf. 2Cor. 5:21); not just positionally, but practically as well (see also the parallel verse in 1Pet. 2:24 for this same idea). Again, in Rom. 8:3 Paul says literally in the Greek that on the cross Christ personally took on “the likeness of sinful flesh, and concerning sin condemned sin in the flesh”– even in OUR flesh! And this is why Paul can now say in Romans 6, “How shall WE WHO DIED TO SIN still live in it?” (v. 2, NASB). When Christ personally died to our sin in His flesh, we too personally died to our sin in our flesh when we were spiritually united with Him by the baptism of the Spirit (cp. 1Cor. 12:13). Again, Paul says we have been “baptized into His death” (Rom. 6:3, NASB); we have been “united with Him in the likeness of His death” (v. 5, NASB); and “we have died with Christ” (v. 8, NASB). And in every place where this word "likeness" is found in Rom. 1:23; 4:14; 6:5; 8:3 and Php. 2:7, it means alike, not somewhat or partially alike. And the "likeness" is that Christ became like us in both spirit and body, and then crucified us, in order that we might become like Him in both our spirit and in our body in all holiness.

In two more places Paul talks about what has occurred to us inside spiritually when we were spiritually “baptized” into Christ:

The first occurrence is in Col. 2:11-13. Like in Romans 6, Paul says of our spiritual baptism into Christ: “in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (vv. 11-12). Paul goes on to say of our baptism into Christ that “you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh,” and that “God made you alive with Christ” (v. 13). The Greek word for “made alive” here denotes being reanimated after one is dead. It is a spiritual resurrection of one who was spiritually dead in sins and trespasses. This isn’t a physical resurrection but a spiritual one; not external but internal. And Paul talks again about this in Eph. 2:1-5 as well, often referred to as “the twin epistle” to Colossians. Of course, all of this presupposes that Christ in some sense became dead both spiritually and physically in his human nature with our sins and trespasses placed upon him. For as Calvin says, “certainly had not His soul shared in the punishment, He would have been a Redeemer of bodies only” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, XVI, 12, p. 445). And being that most reformed brethren, both then and now, are dichotomists, when they say “soul” they mean “spirit.” Like Calvin, many of the old reformers believed that Christ incurred some kind of death not only to His body, but to His soul (or spirit) as well. And reformed expositor, R. L. Dabney, in his systematic theology, also notes how Calvin understood the Apostles’ Creed of Christ dying, being buried, and descending into hell to mean: “by Christ’s descending into hell, the torments of spiritual death, which He suffered in dying, not after. His idea is, that the Creed meant simply to asseverate, by the words, ‘descended into hell,’ the fact that Christ actually tasted the pangs of spiritual death, in addition to bodily, and in this sense endured hell-torments for sinners, so far as they can be felt without [He himself having personal] sin” (Systematic Theology, 1878, lecture 45, pp. 546-547; words in brackets mine). Herman Bavinck likewise states: “All the Reformed without exception opposed the opinion of Catholics, confessing that Christ bore the wrath of God and tasted the spiritual death of His abandonment also in His soul” (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3, p. 417). And Francis Turretin also confesses: “the orthodox [church] refer Christ’s suffering to the soul as well as the body,” and that, “The necessity of our salvation required this. For as we had sinned in soul and body, so Christ, the surety, must suffer in both parts in order to pay a sufficient ransom price (lytron) to the divine justice and to redeem the soul and body” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, p. 353). And Turretin also quotes Irenaeus, who writes: “who gave His own soul for our soul and His own flesh for our flesh” (ibid). And then Turretin again adds: “God suspending for a little while the favorable presence of grace [in forsaking Christ on the cross]…that He might be able to suffer all the punishment due to us” (ibid). No wonder that Paul could say in Rom. 6:6 that Christ crucified our old man. How could Christ have done so unless He had somehow and in some sense became us, and then killed us, in order that we might become a new man in Him? We were already dead in sins and trespasses (Eph. 2:1, 5), so how is it that we died with Christ, if it wasn't physically? We died with Christ spiritually to sin, clearly, when He also died spiritually to the sin of our old man created in Adam. And we rise spiritually as well to a new life because Christ was also "made alive in spirit," according to 1Pet. 3:18 and 1Tim. 3:16 in the ASV translation. Again, see my article: Created In God’s Image, Not Adam’s, part 2, that goes into more detail into all of this. Also see my article: Christ Our Substitute and Identification.

The second occurrence where Paul talks about our spiritual baptism in Christ is in Gal. 3:27. Here Paul says, “all of you who were [spiritually] baptized into Christ have PUT ON (or, literally, 'clothed' yourselves with) Christ.” No one in their right mind would understand Paul to be saying here that this is what happens to us “externally” or just on a “corporate” level. Each of us are personally and spiritually “clothed” with Christ within, not without (see also Isa. 61:3, 6, 10; Rev. 7:9; 19:7). In our baptism into Christ, we each internally put off as old clothing the old man created in Adam through his fall into sin; and in Christ we each internally put on as new clothing the new man created in Christ in all holiness. And this agrees with Col. 3:10 and Eph. 4:24 of being made after God’s own image and likeness whereby “we might be partakers of His holiness” (Heb. 12:10, KJV). Putting on Christ here in Gal. 3:27 is putting on the new man who was created in Christ after God’s very own image and likeness. Again, all of this is very personal and internal brethren, and has nothing to do with what is going on physically or externally around us.

Of a truth, the carnal and fleshly old man that we use to be is “dead” via our Kinsman-Redeemer, with a spiritual new man recreated and resurrected in his place, so that we can now personally “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4, NASB). I like how The Message bible paraphrases a part of Rom. 8:3, “God went for the jugular when he sent his own Son…In his Son, Jesus, he personally took on the human condition, entered the disordered mess of struggling humanity in order to set it right once and for all.” The “flesh” that Paul (as Saul) said he and all those still under the law struggled with internally (and not externally) in Romans 7, has been absolutely “crucified” in all believers according to Gal. 5:24. And it was that “law” of the flesh that Paul spoke about in his members, in association with his “inner man” (or with his “old man”) in Rom. 7:22-23, that he and all of us have been once-and-for-all delivered from.

Again, in 2Cor. 5:17 Paul says, “if any man is IN Christ, HE IS a new creation”—lit., a new creature! The old man in us died and a new man (or new creature) is created IN us in Christ. “HE IS” (we personally are) a new creature, says Paul, not our environment! Again, not objectively but subjectively. Paul is not speaking in the abstract, but of that which is concrete and real within us. We do not just “belong to” this new creation in a corporate sense, as true as that may be, but we are personally and individually a new creation (see additional note below²). And this is what Paul says in Gal. 6:15 of the person who is a new creature, not based upon any outward physical associations or physical circumcision, but based upon an inward spiritual circumcision of the old heart for a new heart. It is he who is a Jew (or Israel) inwardly, not outwardly (v. 16; Rom. 2:28-29). And this is why Paul concludes this epistle to the Galatians immediately thereafter in verse 18 with, “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit,” and not with your flesh. Clearly, this new creation is internal and effects the heart (or our spirit). This is the removal (or circumcision) of the old heart that is replaced with a new heart that God talked about creating in us in Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26.

Additionally, Paul says in Colossians 3:9-10 that in having put off the old man, that we “have put on the new man WHO is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of the One who created HIM.” We are intimately, individually and personally being renewed; we are the ones personally created by God after His image and likeness. It is a real stretch of the imagination to say that our old man having died is not us personally that has changed inside, but only our outward environment or something that is just done for us positionally (see also notes on Eph. 4:24 of the new man being created after God’s own image and likeness in my article called, Created In God‘s Image, Not Adam’s, part 5). Clearly Paul says this new man in Eph. 4:24 is created in or after God’s image, proving beyond all doubt that this is internal and very personal. We have received a new birth with a new heart to become a new man who is a new creation. Again, this isn’t just a “community” or “corporate” thing; it is an internal personal thing.

No Christian reading these verses in Colossians and Ephesians (or even in Romans 6) would just naturally assume that Paul is talking about that which occurs outwardly on a “corporate” or “community” level and not on an "inward," "personal" and “individual” level. That idea might be seen elsewhere, such as in all of us (both Jews and Gentiles) being one new man or one body in Christ, but not here; but even at that, we are all individual “members” with differing abilities and ministries with each member supplied and held together internally by joints and ligaments (Col. 2:19); we are “one” in spirit/Spirit in unison of thought and purpose, while each of us remain separate and distinct. And just as a husband and wife are said to be “one flesh” (Eph. 5:31), the members of Christ’s body are said to be “one Spirit/spirit” (1Cor. 6:17; Eph. 4:4; Php. 1:27; 2:2). The one new man in Christ is who each of us are on an inward personal level, as well as on a corporate level. In Christ, we are the “one” seed (Gal. 3:16f, 29), the “one” vine (Jhn. 15:1ff) and the “one” olive tree (Rom. 11:17ff) with many branches. But, again, it is not who we are “externally” or “physically” but who we are “internally” and “spiritually” on an individual and personal level. As individual stones, individually cut by God, we constitute “one” new spiritual temple that is being built up holy to the Lord. So to say that we are all one new man in Christ corporately does not overturn the fact that we are all individually a new man in Christ as well. To speak of one is to speak of the other. We being “many,” are yet “one.” And this is all that Paul can mean by saying that we are corporately one new man or one body in Christ. Nothing more and nothing less is to be pressed into the meaning of this. Such an idea of a “corporate” view being presented by Paul in Rom. 6:6, Col. 3:9-10 and Eph. 4:22-24 of something done “outside” of us, and not “within” us, is something that would have to be “read into” these verses. And just as Paul says in these same chapters that we are all to individually (and not corporately) put off sin in our bodies, we are also said to have individually (and not corporately) put off who we were as the old man in Adam and have individually put on the new man who was created in Christ. And this former outer change of putting off sin in our bodies is a result of this latter inward change of having put on the new inner man in Christ. We don’t perform good works by outward associations, but by an inward transformation. If we are going to read into these verses a “corporate” change or idea with regards to the old man and new man, then to be consistent we would also have to say that Paul is speaking “corporately” about removing sin in our lives as well, and not on an individual and personal basis. In other places, Paul talks about removing sinners from our midst on a corporate level. But in all of these other passages that we are discussing it is on a very personal and individual level. As John Murray notes, “Our union with Christ in his death and resurrection must not be bereft of its intimacy, but with equal jealousy it must be interpreted in terms of Spiritual and mystical relationship” (Romans, I, 218).

Additionally, in consideration of our old man being crucified in Rom. 6:6, in Gal. 2:20 Paul said he had been personally crucified in Christ, and that “it is no longer I (my ego, my inner personal self) who lives, but CHRIST LIVES IN ME...” Does this crucifixion sound like a “corporate” identity or just a metaphor? Like something just “external” and on a “community” level? As being "transferred" from one realm or regime to another realm or regime? Let us all be very careful here of not pressing this “corporate” or “community” idea too far, and then just say that everything that happens to us is more or less external, not internal; to be understood metaphorically and not spiritually. No true Christian with any common sense (or I should say any spiritual sense) should believe this. Paul meant what he said, and said what he meant.

Jesus likewise said, “That which is born of the Spirit, is spirit” (Jhn. 3:6). The word “spirit” here is not an adjective, but a noun. This is very crucial to our understanding of what is exactly happening here to those of us who are born of God. If Jesus had used an adjective, the verse would thus read, “The Spirit gives birth to spiritual people,” as if in some vague, mysterious, and merely ascetic functional way people begin to turn over a new leaf. As true as this may be, the person of the Holy Spirit gives birth to a person’s spirit, so that we may live spiritual lives. This is the new birth. This is what being born again from above is all about. Like produces like. That is Jesus’ point! Jesus is likening what happens to us physically through birth, to what also happens to us spiritually by a birth. A child is of the same nature as the parent. Earthly fathers of the flesh beget children of the flesh who are dead in sins and trespasses; our heavenly Father of the Spirit begets children of the Spirit in their spirit who are alive unto God and to holiness; and just as we have born the image of the earthly, so too have we born the image of the heavenly. If we don’t “see” what Jesus is saying here, then we don’t see anything and we are no more blind to this truth than Nicodemus was. To be sure, the attending “fruit” of such individuals is not what is at the forefront here in Jhn. 3:6; it’s the root or the tree. It is making the tree good in order that the fruit be good as well.

We do not, and cannot, escape corporeality by outward religious asceticisms, but by an inward spiritual change of the heart. This is Paul’s thesis everywhere throughout his epistles. It is not a “sphere,” “realm,” or “environment” that makes us slaves to sin or slaves to God; to bear fruit unto God or to bear fruit unto death. It is our relationship to either being the old man “in” Adam or being the new man “in” Christ. And we are clearly not both, a mistake that many also make (see my article or book called, Created In God’s Image, Not Adam’s!).

One thing is for certain though with Jacobson’s analysis of Gal. 5:16-18. In quoting Charles Cousar, Jacobson clearly agrees with Cousar that Paul “removes the contrast from the realm of the inner nature of the Christian to that of the forces at work in the world, an eschatological, salvation-history perspective” (ibid). On this one point we can agree: we are not talking about the inward struggles of the believer here, but of the unbeliever who is still wholly of the flesh and still under law; one who is born only of the flesh and not born of the Spirit. In reading a lot of Greek expositors, the consensus among most seems to be that when in a given context “sarx” (flesh) is sharply contrasted against “pnuema” (Spirit), it is to be understood in the anthropological sense of a life either with or without God; a natural (psuchikos) man, as opposed to a spiritual (pnuematikos) man (cf. 1Cor. 2:14-15), with Paul now using in these above verses the adjectival forms of who is “natural” as opposed to who is “spiritual.” Again, one wholly of the flesh, as opposed to one who is wholly of the Spirit. And this naturally presupposes that this would include the inner part of man's entire human being or nature as well. Can I get an, “Amen!”? (In the quotations above, emphasis in italics and words in brackets mine for clarification).

Additional Notes to Footnote above:

¹ Cf. Lev. 16:21-22. Additionally, it should not go without notice that the Scapegoat was so defiled with the people’s sins, that the person accompanying the Scapegoat into the wilderness (or, literally, to a place “cut off”) had to wash his clothes and bathe his body with water before returning to camp (v. 26). And the bull and the goat for the sin offering whose blood was brought into the Most Holy place to make atonement for sin, had to have their skin's, flesh and offal’s (or “internal” organs) burned outside the camp; and the man who burned them also had to wash his clothes and bathe his body in water before returning to camp (vv. 27-28).

So, it should come as no surprise or shock to us by now that Christ “bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness” (1Pet. 2:24). “The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6); “the Lord made His life a guilt offering” (v. 10); “He will bear their iniquities” (v. 11); “He bore the sin of many” (v. 12); and “He was assigned a grave with the wicked” and “was numbered with the transgressors” (vv. 9, 12). His defilement with our sin, of necessity, brought Him to the very throngs of the ungodly spirits in prison to whom He would eventually preach to (cf. 1Pet. 3:18-19; 4:6), though some recklessly finagle all of this to mean something entirely different, as if Christ did not descend into hell at all but only preached to these spirits through the endeavors of Noah, who were then living in the days of Noah. But it was only after the entire “suffering of His soul” (Isa. 53:11) or, the "trouble experienced not only in His body, but into the inmost recesses of His soul" (Keil and Del.), that Christ would eventually “see the light of life and be satisfied” (ibid), or better: see what it would accomplish and be satisfied. If Christ didn’t suffer in His soul, even to hell, all the wrath due us, then he didn’t suffer for us. The necessity of our salvation required this. For just as we have sinned in both soul and body, so Christ, our Surety, must also suffer in both parts in order to pay a sufficient ransom to the divine justice in order to also redeem both our soul and body. And it is to this personal descent of Christ’s human spirit into hell, that we owe our exemption to it.

It is also interesting to note here with regards to the Sin Offering and the Trespass Offering: In my bible college days, according to a book written by L. Thomas Holdcroft, called, The Pentateuch, it was commonly understood that the Sin Offering had to do with our sinful nature, the Trespass Offering with sins knowingly committed; the former with the root of our sin, the latter with the fruit of that root; the former involves the person of the sinner, the latter with the actions of the sinner; the former violates that which God is by nature, the latter violates that which God decrees; the former meant that the sinner was deficient and helpless before God, the latter that the sinner was obligated (regardless of his bent towards sin) to repent and to be cleansed of any defilements.

So, in like manner, Christ as our Sin Offering dealt with our nature (or the sin principle); while as a Trespass Offering He dealt with all of our actual trespasses (or all of our active “sins”). Christ’s sacerdotal ministry was not only to cleanse the outside of our cups, but the inside as well; not only to cleanse our hands and feet, but our bodies as well. As the Creator, it is to make the tree good so that the fruit of the tree be good as well; to turn a salt water spring into a fresh water spring; to destroy the old man (or vessel) created in Adam and to create a new man (or vessel) in Christ; to turn children of darkness into children of light through and through: first in their spirits, then in their souls, and finally in their bodies (cf. 1Ths. 5:23).
² This is, in effect, what verse 15 likewise says. Our old self died in Christ and we were made alive as a new self in order that we should no longer live for ourselves, but for Him who died for us and was raised again. Verse 16 continues that we now know no one after the flesh, which would naturally lead us to presume that we now know only people after the spirit/Spirit; no more in a carnal way, but in a spiritual way which can only be as a result of an inward change. And so Paul concludes in verse 17: If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; the old person of the flesh has passed away, with a new person of the spirit/Spirit rising in his place.

The words “he is,” in the phrase “he is a new creature,” are not in the original and are supplied by the translators. And a very small minority of translations (such as NRSV) tend to translate this as: “there is a new creation,” implying that just a new situation has come about in one’s environment, and not in their person. Again, it is viewing this all from an outward “corporate” perspective, rather than from an internal “individual” perspective. The newer 2011 NIV translation, headed up by Douglas Moo, takes this approach with the translation “the new creation has come,” since he (and evidently those in league with him) views the new man and new creation as not something internally denoted of us, but as only something externally realized. The older 1984 NIV retains: “he is a new creation.” Most translations supply the subject noun “he” with the verb “is” (as this verb relates to the perfect active indicative verb “the new has come” in the latter part of this verse) because the Greek singular masculine personal pronoun translated “any man” (or “anyone” in some translations) seems to imply that Paul has individuals in mind, rather than an inanimate object such as just a change to our outward environment. And even what was stated above in verses 15-16 indicates that this is all very personal and on an individual basis. No longer “living to ourselves” in verse 15 is the result of an “inward” change, not a “corporate” or “environmental” change. And even the phrase “in Christ” can clearly mean several ideas that are NOT mutually exclusive of each other: that one belongs to Christ, that one lives in the sphere of Christ’s power, that one is united with Christ, or that one is a part of the body of Christ which is the believing community of believers. No one doubts that Christ’s death and resurrection marks a radical eschatological break between the old age and the new age. But for some to even say that Paul never uses the Greek noun ktisis (“creation”) to refer to an individual is a case for mistaken identity; for in Gal. 6:15 Paul uses it for all those who have the inward circumcision of the old heart for a new heart, as opposed to an outward physical circumcision. And the verb (ktizo) is used of the new man who is said to be “created” in God’s image in Eph. 4:24, and of a person personally renewed after this image of Him that “created” him (or this new man) in Col. 3:10.
[10] Spirit-Powered Living: A Positive Interpretation of Galatians 5:16-18, Oct 10, 2011. Words in italics his.
[11] Paul's usage of the personal pronoun “I” in Romans 7 is also known as a historic present tense, used to put himself in the place of those to whom he is referring to, but not necessarily referring to his present life as a Christian. Paul used this just earlier in Rom. 3:7, when in speaking of unsaved Jews, he says, “But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?” (ESV). Of course, we can readily see Paul was not referring to himself as a believer, but just putting himself in the place of his unsaved Jewish brethren who would argue like this. No one better than Paul could relate to them in such a way as this by putting himself in their shoes. This is the purpose of the dramatic, singular, first person historic present tense “I am.” It is more common to see it used in the second and third person, but using it in the first person is not without warrant, as any grammarian will tell you.

Matthew Poole, in his commentary, likewise notes with regards to Paul using himself as an example in the first person here in Rom. 3:7: “The apostle does plainly personate in this place a wicked objector, or he speaks in the name and person of such a one. This way of speaking and writing is very frequent amongst all authors” (Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Peabody: MA, 2008; vol. 3, p. 487). This is a remarkable assertion by Poole, considering the fact that he believes in Romans 7 that Paul is there talking about his post-conversion experience. Poole could see Paul using this historic present tense in chapter 3, but not in chapter 7; and the same goes for Charles Hodge, John Stott and Kenneth Wuest who are noted below. A. T. Robertson, also noted below, is the only one among the bunch that doesn't view Paul in Romans 7 as a regenerate Christian, and makes mention of Paul's first person historic present tense usage of "I am" in Rom. 3:7 to buttress this idea. So for Paul to use this first person historic present tense usage in Romans 7 is not without precedent.

As I said, in commenting on Rom. 3:7, commentator and theologian Charles Hodge is in agreement with Poole and many others. Hodge writes: “the apostle here personates a heathen” (Romans, p. 74). And Hodge includes all Jews here as well: “the I, therefore, stands for anyone” (ibid). John Stott likewise emphatically asserts how that Paul “impersonates the objector by using the first person singular” (Romans, p. 97). And Kenneth Wuest and A. T. Robertson, in quoting a citation in A. T. Robertson’s work, assert that Paul “‘uses the first person from motives of delicacy’ (Sanday and Headlam) in this supposable case for argument’s sake as in 1Cor. 4:6. So here he [Paul] ‘translates by fiction’ (Field) to himself the objection.” (Word Studies, vol. 1, p. 54; and Word Pictures, vol. 4, p. 343; words in brackets mine). So don't tell me that Paul never spoke in this manner. He just did in Rom. 3:7!
[12] Many Greek expositors and bible commentators make note of the fact that the second part of Gal. 5:16 about not fulfilling the lust of the flesh is not a “command,” as the RSV translation would lead us to believe. It is actually tied to the first part of the verse of walking in the Spirit, and is a “result” or "promise" which is linked to that. In other words, if we walk in the Spirit we will never fulfill the lust of the flesh. And Paul’s emphasis of “never” fulfilling the lust of the flesh is enforced by the double-negative Greek adverbs “ού μή” (pronounced “oo may”) that are back to back and give us our many translations that actually use the English word “never.” Greek aficionado, William Mounce, notes of these two negative adverbs when tied to a subjunctive verb, as with our word “fulfill” here in verse 16, that they “indicate a strong negation about the future. The speaker uses the subjunctive verb to suggest a future possibility, but in the same phrase he emphatically denies (by means of the double negative) that such could ever happen” (Basics of Biblical Greek, p. 287). And to buttress this idea of the force of the double negative here, Mounce goes on to say that “in Jesus’ description of himself as the Good Shepherd in John 10, he gives one of the most treasured of these promises: ‘My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish (ού μή άπόλωνται)” (ibid.; italics for emphasis mine). Wow! Did you catch that? We who are in the Spirit can no more gratify, fulfill, or carry out the principle of sin which is the “lust” (sing. noun) of the flesh here, than the one who is one of Christ’s sheep can never ever perish. That is a pretty strong and irrefutable negation, leaving us with no choice but to believe that the one in the flesh in Gal. 5:16 and 17 is someone who is still entirely of the flesh and under the Law, and not of the Spirit and under grace.
[13] Word Pictures in the New Testament, Epistles of Paul (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, 1931); vol. 4, p. 313.
[14] Ibid. Italics mine for emphasis.
[15] Principles of Conduct, p. 203, 205, 207, 208, 212-213.
[16] Collected Writings of John Murray; vol. 2, Systematic Theology, p. 279.
[17] Darkness and Light, An Exposition of Ephesians 4:17–5:17 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), pp. 173-174, 175, 177-178.