posin1b

The alternative here proposed is based on a radically different assumption: the transmission of death and not transmission of sin and of a sinful nature. It thus differs from previous attempts to solve the problem of original sin. But does this alternative solve the problem of original sin? Does the assumption of transmitted death as the connection between Adam’s sin and the sins of his descendants allow for human freedom and responsibility? More specifically, what is the relationship between transmitted death and the sins of Adam’s descendants? The answer to this questions may be found in an analysis of the last clause of Romans 5:12: eph ho pantes hamarton, which is usually translated “because all [men] sinned” (RSV, NAS, NIV).

The interpretation of this clause hangs on the meaning of the Greek prepositional phrase at its beginning, eph ho. This phrase is made up of a preposition epi and a relative pronoun ho. The preposition epi has several different meanings depending upon the immediate context and the case of the noun or pronoun with which it occurs. Its primary meaning is superposition, on, upon. Since the relative pronoun ho is in the dative case, the metaphorical meaning of ground, or reason seems best here for the preposition epi. Thus it should be translated on the ground of, by reason of, on the condition of, or because of. [1] The meaning of the relative pronoun depends upon its antecedent. In the Greek language the relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in number and gender. [2] Here the relative pronoun is singular in number but it may be either masculine or neuter in gender. Accordingly the following interpretations have been given to this phrase.

1.  Some interpreters take the relative pronoun as masculine with the words henos anthropou [one man] in the first clause as its antecedent. Augustine, following the Latin Vulgate translation of the whole clause, in quo omnes peccaverunt [“in whom all sinned”], took the relative pronoun as masculine and at the same time gave the preposition the meaning of “in”. Thus he gave the prepositional phrase the meaning in lumbis Adami [in the loins of Adam”]. [3] However this interpretation must be rejected. For

(a) the Greek preposition epi does not have the meaning of “in” and

(b) while the Greek relative pronoun ho may be taken as masculine, it is too far removed from its antecedent, anthropou [“man”], being separated from it by so many intervening clauses. [4] Most modern interpreters agree in rejecting Augustine’s grammatical analysis of the phrase. [5]

2.  Some other interpreters take the relative pronoun as neuter with the words that follow pantes hamarton [“all sinned”] as the antecedent. Thus the prepositional phrase eph ho would be equivalent to epi touto oti [“because of this, that”]. Accordingly, the translators of our English versions have rendered it either “for that” (KJV) or “because” (RSV, NAS, NIV). And the clause would be interpreted to mean that death passed unto all men because all men sinned, that is, men die because of their own sins. But if this meaning is given to this last clause, Paul would appear to be retracting what he had just been affirming in the first three clauses of this verse, that all men die because of Adam’s sin. Paul would seem to be teaching that all men die not only because of Adam’s sin but also because of their own personal sins. This obscures the meaning of the verse and appears to contradict what Paul teaches clearly in the following verses and elsewhere that all men die because of Adam’s sin and not their own.

“^5:13 For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.  ^5:14 But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of him who was to come.”    (Rom. 5:13-14 ERS)

 

“…For if by the offense of one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.”    (Rom. 5:15 ERS)

 

“For if by the offense of the one, death reigned through the one, much more shall those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ.”    (Rom. 5:17 ERS)

 

“^15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come the resurrection of the dead.  ^15:22 For as in Adam all die,  so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”    (I Cor. 15:21-22)

Thus by giving the prepositional phrase eph ho the meaning “because,” the meaning of the verse is obscured and Paul is made to appear to contradict himself. This interpretation of the clause has lead one famous German New Testament scholar, Rudolf Bultman, to conclude that Paul is obscure in this passage. He says,

“For the context, it would have been sufficient to mention only Adam’s sin; there was no need to speak of the sin of the rest of man, for whether they were sinners or not, through Adam they had simply been doomed to death — an idea that was expressed not only in Judaism but also by Paul himself (v. 14).  However, Paul gets into obscurity here because he also wants to have the death of men after Adam regarded as the punishment or consequence of their own sin: ‘and so death spread to all men — because all men sinned’ (v.12)!” [6]

It is not Paul who is obscure here but his interpreters and their interpretation of this phrase has caused the obscurity and makes Paul appear to contradict himself. Thus this interpretation must be rejected.

Furthermore, this interpretation of the clause destroys the parallel which Paul draws between Adam and Christ in this passage, Romans 5:12-21, and in I Cor. 15. If Paul had meant that all men became subject to death because of the sins that they themselves committed, then it would have to follow, if there is a parallelism between Adam and Christ, that all men enter into life because of the righteousness that they themselves have achieved. This is certainly the opposite of what Paul says. Life is a gift which each may receive by faith (Rom. 5:17, 15) and not something they can earn by their righteousness. There are differences between Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:15-17) but this is certainly not one of them. This interpretation of the clause, then, destroys the parallelism between Adam and Christ and thus also must be rejected.

1.  Some interpreters have attempted to escape these objections, while retaining the meaning of “because” for the prepositional phrase, by interpreting the whole clause to have the following meaning: “because all sinned in Adam.” They do this by taking the aorist tense of the verb hamarton [sinned] as a constative aorist; that is, the action is regarded as a whole, in its entirety. Bengel has given this interpretation classic expression: omnes peccaverunt, Adamo peccante [all sinned when Adam sinned]. All sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam; that is, his sin was their sin. But if this is what Paul intended to say, why did he leave the all important words “in Adam” to be understood? Sanday and Headlam ask,

“If St. Paul had meant this, why did he not say so?  The insertion of en Adam [in Adam] would have removed all ambiguity.” [7]

This interpretation has all the appearances of being read into the passage (eisegesis) rather than out of it (exegesis). Futhermore, the phrase pantes hamarton [“all sinned”] normally refers to the personal sins of all men as it does in Romans 3:23. The aorist tense of the verb hamarton [“sinned”] signifies nothing as to the completeness of the action. A constative aorist may refer “to a momentary action (Acts 5:5), a fact or action extended over a period of time (Eph. 2:4), or a succession of acts or events (II Cor. 11:25).” [8] Again it appears to contradict what Paul says in verse 14:

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression of Adam.”    (ERS)

It appears that this interpretation of the clause must also be rejected.

1.  One other interpretation of the clause is possible if the relative pronoun ho is taken as masculine and the words ho thanatos [the death] in the preceding clause, which are singular and masculine, are taken as its antecedent. [9] Then the prepositional phrase eph ho would be equivalent to epi thanato [“because of death”]. [10] In that case the phrase should be translated “because of which” or “upon which condition.” With this meaning given to the prepositional phrase, the whole clause may be translated “because of which all sinned” and interpreted to mean that all men sinned because of death that has been transmitted to them from Adam. In other words, the transmitted death from Adam provides the grounds or condition upon which all men sin.

Note: This is the view of Theodor Zahn (1838-1933). Lenski says concerning his interpretation of this phrase:

“Another turn is given the phrase so as to have it means: ‘under which condition.’ letting Paul say that in Adam’s case it was first sin then death but in the case of all men it was death first and then life of sinning (Zahn’s view).” [11]

Also Berkouwer says concerning Zahn’s view:

“Along with the two explanations referred to here there is still a third, namely that of Zahn.  This holds that the issue at stake is not an ‘inclusiveness’ in Adam, since this thought is untenable (‘unvollziehbar‘) for anyone who does not believe in the pre-existence of souls in Adam (Zahn, Komm., p. 265); concept of “all men in Adam” imperils the image of ‘through one man.’  Therefore Zahn translates: ‘and on the basis of this (or, under these circumstances) all have sinned’ (267).  Through the sin of the one man death come upon all, and in such circumstances, all have now sinned.  Death was the foundation ‘on which the sinning of all the children of Adam has sprung forth.'” [12]

The only reasons that are given for rejecting this interpretation are not grammatical but theological. Godet’s objections to this interpretation are clearly theological as are those of Sanday and Headlam. [13] This interpretation clearly does not fit into the legalistic theological framework of Roman Catholic and Protestant scholasticism which sees death only as the penalty of sin. Death is usually taken to mean physical death or the penalty of sin, and thus it is impossible to sin because of death.

But how is it possible for all men to sin because of death? How does death lead to sin? This may be explained in the following way. Since man is born into this world spiritually dead, not knowing the true God personally, and since man by the structure of his freedom must choose a god, then he will obviously choose a false god because he does not personally know the true God. Since the true God is not a living reality to him, and since he must have a god, man will choose some part or aspect of reality as his god, deifying it.

“…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator…”   (Rom. 1:25).

Paul, writing to the Galatians, described this relationship of death to sin when he reminded them of their condition before they became Christians.

“Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods”    (Gal. 4:8).

Not to “know God” personally as a living reality is to be spiritually dead. And a man is “in bondage to beings that are no gods” when he chooses them as his gods. He is in bondage to them because he does not personally know the only true God, that is, because he is spiritually dead. Thus man sins (chooses a false god) because he is spiritually dead. This relationship between death and sin is what Paul is describing in the last clause of Romans 5:12. “Because of death all men sinned.” Spiritual death in the case of Adam’s descendants leads to sin; not the other way around.

The relationship of sin to death now after the fall is different from the relationship between them at the fall. At the fall death was the result of sin (“through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin.” Rom. 5:12ab ERS). This was established by the divine decree implicit in the command God gave to Adam (“for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Gen. 2:17 NAS). Adam’s sin was unique since it was the act of the head of the race; Adam’s position in the human race is unique, as Paul teaches clearly in Romans 5:12-21 and I Cor. 15:21-22, 44-49. His sin affected the human race in a way that the sin of no man after him has; it involved the whole race in death, spiritual and physical. Adam’s descendants do not have to sin to die, spiritually or physically. They are born into the world over which death reigns and are involved from birth in spiritual and physical death (“Let the dead bury their dead” Matt. 8:22 KJV; Luke 9:60). Now since the fall, sin is the result of death. Since the fall, man does not have to sin to die but sins because he is already dead. Since the fall, this is the basic relationship between death and sin. Later, “the law came in besides” (Rom. 5:20 ERS) and superimposed upon this basic relationship of sin-because-of-death (spiritual) the relationship of death-because-of-sin. “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4, 20; see also Deut. 24:16; Isa. 59:2). The law clarifies not only the nature of sin (Rom. 3:20) that the basic sin is idolatry (Ex. 20:3) but also man’s responsibility for his sins (see the whole of chapter 18 of Ezekiel). But the coming of the law did not change the basic relationship: man sins because he is spiritually dead.

Man is not responsible for this condition of spiritual death inherited from Adam. The descendants of Adam are neither held accountable for the sin of Adam nor for the spiritual or physical death resulting from it ( Rom. 5:13-14). Both the natural and federal headship theories are incorrect here. Adam’s descendants are not guilty of Adam’s sin neither has his sin been inputed to their accounts. The doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin is nowhere taught in Scripture. In fact it is contrary to the explicit teaching of Scripture.

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”    (Ezekiel 18:20 NAS; see also Deut. 24:16; Jer. 31:30)

Adam’s descendants are only responsible for their own personal rejection of the true God and their ultimate commitment to a false god. Even though man is born into the world spiritually dead, alienated from God, not knowing God, he is not thereby exempt from responsibility for the choice of the wrong god. As Paul says in Rom. 1:19-20 [ERS],

“^1:19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it to them.  ^1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”    (Rom. 1:19-20 ERS)

In verse 19, Paul refers to a knowledge of God which all men have and in verse 20, he says two things about this knowledge:

(a) This knowledge is a knowledge of the “invisible things of him,” of God, namely, “his eternal power and Godhead” or divine nature.

(b) These two “invisible things of him…are clearly seen (verse 20), that is, manifested, laid open to public view (verse 19).

This paradoxical way of stating the source of this knowledge raises the question: how are these unseen things clearly seen? The answer is given in the phrase “being understood by the things that are made (verse 20). They are seen by a rational act, the act of the mind, “by the things that are made”. For the things that are made are analogous in their being to the unseen things of Him. That which God created reflects the invisible things of Him, the Creator, like a work of art reflects the artist. (Of course, this analogy of the artist and his work cannot be applied to the Creator and His creation without reservations.) All examples of power in the physical world, the earthquakes, storms, even nuclear energy, are like God’s eternal power. The creation reflects the Creator in His power. If this be so, then what in all creation is like His Godhead or divine nature? Only man himself is analoguous to God’s divine nature because man alone has been created in the image of God (compare verse 19: “that which is known of God is manifest in them;…”). Man’s person is similar to God’s person. Paul uses this same analogy between God’s being and man’s being in his address on Mars Hill, the Areopagus, in Athens recorded in Acts 17:22-31, to argue against idolatry. After he had quoted one of the Greek’s own poets as saying “For we are also his offspring,” Paul argues,

“Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.”  (Acts 17:29 NAS;   Compare to theion translated “divine nature” in this verse with theiotes translated “divine nature” in Rom. 1:20.)

Being created by God in His image, the nature of God must be at least as personal as our nature. Therefore, the true God cannot be a non-person, a thing made of gold or silver or stone, an image made by man. God’s being must be as personal as our being, if we are the offspring of God, that is, created in His image.

But not only is it true that in man alone is there found that which is like God’s being, but it is also true that in man alone is there found that which is the best analogy of God’s eternal power. The human will in its limited power and freedom is the best analogy in all creation of the divine will with its unlimited power and freedom. (Note that power, dunamis, means “to be able”, dunamai.) What greater created power is there than the power to bless or destroy? In this sense the human power to choose to use the nuclear bomb is greater than the power of the bomb itself. The power of human freedom of decision is greater than the power of physical energy. In man therefore we find that which is the analogy in creation of God’s eternal power and His divine personal nature. The mind of man employing these analogies of being perceives the invisible things of Him through the things that are made or created by God. Thus “God manifest it [the truth] unto them” (verse 19). The unseen things of God are clearly seen because that which is known of God is manifested in them. So man is without excuse for his idolatry, exchanging the truth about God for a lie and worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:25). Man has no excuse for choosing a false god. He knows that it is not the true God because a false god is impersonal and/or powerless; it is less of a person than he is and has as little or less power or freedom than he has.

This knowledge of the true God leaves man without excuse for his idolatry. But it does not save him because it is knowledge about the true God and not a personal knowledge of the true God. But even though a man is not responsible for being spiritually dead, he is responsible for remaining in the state of spiritual death when deliverance is offered to him in the person of Jesus Christ. If he refuses the gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus, he must reap the harvest and receive the results of his decision, eternal death.

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”    (Rom. 6:23).

If a man refuses the gift of spiritual and eternal life in Christ Jesus and continues to put his trust in a false god, remaining in spiritual death, then after he dies physically, at the last judgment he will receive the results of his decision, eternal death, separation from God for eternity (“the second death”, Rev. 20:14; 21:6-8; Matt. 7:21-23). Thus there are three kinds of death: physical, spiritual and eternal death. Man is condemned to eternal death not because of Adam’s sin but because of his own personal sin, his choice of a false god and the rejection of Jesus Christ.

Even though man is born into the world spiritually dead, alienated from God, not knowing God personally, he has not lost his freedom of choice. He does not have a sinful nature which causes him to sin. Spiritual death has not done anything to man’s ability to choose. He neither lacks the alternatives to choose between nor the ability to choose. Then why does man sin, that is, why does he choose a false god? He chooses a false god because the true God is not a living reality to him. He knows about the true God (Rom. 1:19-20), but he does not know him personally as a living reality. And lacking this personal knowledge, man does not have an adequate reason for choosing the true God. The true God Himself is the only adequate reason for choosing Him. He cannot be chosen for any other reason than Himself. For then He would not be God to that person but that reason for which he is chosen would be God. Only a living encounter with living and true God can produce the situation in which God Himself may be chosen. God Himself is the only adequate condition for the choice of Himself. Thus apart from the personal revelation of God Himself man will usually choose as his god that which seems like god to him from the creation around him or from among the creations of his own hands and mind. Man does not necessarily have to sin, but he usually does. And spiritual death (in the absence of this personal revelation of the true God) is not the necessary cause but the ground or condition of his choice of a false god. The Greek preposition epi translated “because” in the last clause of Rom. 5:12 means “on the basis of” or “on the condition of.” It does not imply any necessary causal connection between death and sin. Man sins by choice, not by necessity. Therefore, since all men are under the reign of death, all have sinned.

The doctrine of the sinful nature is nowhere taught in Scripture. None of the passages of Scripture usually cited in support of this doctrine (Psa. 51:5; Job 14:4; Eph. 2:3) say that man since the fall has a sinful nature, that is, that man sins because he is a sinner by nature. According to Rom. 5:12d (ERS), all men sin because they are spiritually dead. Psa. 51:5, which says,

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,”    (Psa. 51:5)

means either that David’s birth was an act of sin (that is, his birth was illegitimate, which clearly it was not) or that he sins from birth as Psa. 58:3 says:

“The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies.”    (Psa. 58:3. See also Isa. 48:8)

Job 14:4, which says,

“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?  There is none.”    (Job 14:4),

means that righteousness can not come from the unrighteous and that a sinner can only bring forth sin. From the context it does not seem to be referring to the birth of a sinner or to the sinful nature. None of these passages say why man sins from birth. Paul explains that in Romans 5:12d: “because of which [death] all sinned.”

Death is not the sinful nature. These are two totally different concepts. The sinful nature is the nature of man that is sinful and the nature of man is what man is – that which makes man what he is and what he does. The nature of anything is that essence of the thing that determines what it is and how it acts. The sinful nature is that nature of man, because it is sinful, makes him sin. Death, on the other hand, is a negative relationship of separation. Physical death is the separation of man’s spirit from his body, spiritual death is the separation of man’s spirit from God, and eternal death (“the second death,” Rev. 20:14) is the eternal separation of man from God. Spiritual death is the opposite of spiritual life, which is to know personally the true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. Jesus said in His great intercession prayer,

“And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”    (John 17:3).

That is, spiritual death is not to know the true God and Jesus Christ He sent. Knowledge is a relationship between the knower and that which is known. It should be clear now that death is not the sinful nature. A nature is not a relationship. And death as negative relationship is not the sinful nature. According to the Doctrine of Original Sin, the sinful nature causes death, but this does not mean that death is the sinful nature. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it teach this doctrine that death is the sinful nature. Neither does the Scriptures teach that man’s nature is sinful. Man’s nature is neither sinful or good, it is what a man chooses it to be. If he chooses to follow a false god, then his choices will be sinful. On the other hand, if he chooses to follow the true God, then his choices will be righteous and good. And a man makes the choice of his god, upon the basis of whether he knows the true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent, or not. If he does not know the true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent, he will choose a false god; that is, he sins because he is dead (Rom. 5:12d ERS). And all men are sinners because they choose to sin (not that they sin because they are sinners, by nature).  In Eph. 2:2-3 Paul says,

“^2:2 In which [sins] you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air,
of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.  ^2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lust of our flesh,
indulging the wishes of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”    (Eph. 2:2-3)

The “flesh” here is the body, which he contrasts with the mind; “the wishes of the flesh and of the mind.” The NIV totally mistranslates this phrase as “the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts.” The RSV correctly translates it: “the desires of body and mind.” Also Paul says, “we were by nature children of wrath”, not “by nature sinners”. Paul here is not saying why men sin, but only that men are naturely objects of God’s wrath, since they haved sinned.

The flesh is not the sinful nature. The Apostle Paul, like the other New Testament writers, never uses the word “flesh” (sarx) to mean the sinful nature in the sense of that in man which makes him sin, that is, that man sins because he is a sinner by nature. Man does not sin because he is a sinner, but he is a sinner because he sins by choice, not by nature. In the New Testament the Greek word sarx translated “flesh” never means sinful nature. When the Apostle John wrote, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14 NAS), he clearly was not saying that the Word of God became a sinner by nature and had a sinful nature. Clearly, he means that the Son of God became a human being, a man. Paul uses the word “flesh” (sarx), like the rest of the New Testament writers, (the word “sarx” occurs 151 times in the Greek New Testament) with the following different meanings.

1.  The soft tissue of the body (Rom. 2:28; I Cor. 15:39; Col. 2:13),

2.  The body itself (II Cor. 12:7; Gal. 4:13-14; Eph. 2:15; 5:29; Col. 1:24),

3.  The physical union of man and woman (“one flesh” I Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31),

4.   The body contrasted with the human spirit (I Cor. 5:5; II Cor. 7:1; Col. 2:5),

5.   Man or human being (Rom. 3:20 and Gal. 2:16 quoting Psa. 143:2; I Cor. 1:29; Gal. 1:16 and Eph. 6:2 “flesh and blood”;
Rom. 7:18; John 1:14),

6.  Human life on earth (Gal. 2:20; II Cor. 10:3a; Phil. 1:22, 24; Col. 2:10),

7.  Human nature (Rom. 6:19; 8:3; II Cor. 4:11; I Tim. 3:16),

8.  Human (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22 “according to the flesh”; Col. 1:22; 2:11)
or human life (II Cor. 1:17; 10:2, 3b),

9.  Human descent or relationship, kin (Rom. 9:3; 11:14),

10.  Human point of view (I Cor. 1:26; II Cor. 5:16),

11.  Human contrasted with divine (Rom. 1:3; 9:5; Philem. 16),

12.   Unsaved (Rom. 7:5 “in the flesh”; 8:8-9),

13.  That which is not God or of God (Gal. 5:13-24),

14.   Anything that is an object of trust instead of God
(Isa. 31:1-3; Jer. 17:5; Rom. 8:4-7; Phil. 3:3, 4; Compare Phil. 3:19; Col. 3:2). [14]

The Greek word sarx usually translated “flesh” in our English translations (KJV, RSV, NAS) is incorrectly translated in the New International Version (NIV) as “sinful nature” in Rom. 7:18, 25; 8:3, 5, 8, 12, 13; Gal. 5:13, 16, 17; Eph. 2:3.  In Romans 7 Paul never identifies the flesh (sarx) with sinful nature. And neither is the “indwelling sin” in Romans 7:17, 20 the sinful nature. Paul explains in verse 18 what indwelling sin is: that “the good does not dwell in him, that is, in [his] flesh.” The “flesh” here is that part of man that is not spirit (see 4 above).  Neither is the “law of sin” in verses 7:23, 25 and 8:2 the sinful nature; Paul defines the “law of sin” in verse 7:21: “So I find it to be a law that when I want to do the good, evil is present with me.”

This law of sin is not the sinful nature; it describes sin personally, not the cause of sin.  And also in Romans 8 Paul never identifies the flesh (sarx) with the sinful nature. In Romans 8:3 the word sarx “flesh” is qualified by the word “sin”, because the flesh is not inherently sinful. The flesh here is human nature (see 7 above) and can be designated as sinful only when a man chooses to sin, to be a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-18).

The Greek word sarx in Romans 8:4-7, 12-13 designates anything that is an object of trust instead of God (see 14 above) and it is not the sinful nature. The use of sarx in verse 5 is just Paul’s way of saying that “those according to the flesh,” put their trust in something other than the true God, that is, “set their minds on the things of the flesh”. The Greek word translated “set the mind on” (phroneo) indicates a “conscious spiritual orientation of life,” an attitude or disposition of the will. [15] See Paul’s use of this word phroneo in Rom. 12:16; Phil. 2:2,5; 3:15; and Col. 3:2; see also Matt. 16:23. The orientation toward the flesh, to that which is not God who is spirit, is what we have been calling the basic sin of idolatry (Isa. 31:1-3; Jer. 17:5; Phil. 3:3-4, 19). This is not the sinful nature and it is misleading to call it that. Those who are according to the Spirit, on the other hand, put their trust in the true God; they are oriented to the things of the Spirit. Since the god in whom one trusts is one’s ultimate criterion for all his choices, a person will choose those things that are in agreement with his ultimate criterion; his attitude and disposition will be oriented toward the things of his god. If his god is a false god (the flesh), he will be oriented toward the things of that false god; if his God is the true God (the Spirit), he will be oriented toward the thing of the true God.
The phrase “in the flesh” in Romans 8:8-9 is clearly equivalent to “unsaved” as in Rom. 7:5 (see 12 above); it is opposite to being “in the Spirit” which is to be saved. Paul used this phrase “in the flesh” previously in Rom. 7:5 to refer to their condition before they turned to Christ and were saved. It is equivalent to being “unsaved” and is the opposite to being “in the Spirit” (see verse 8:9). Those who are in the flesh cannot please God, because they do not have faith in the true God. “And without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6).