Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig.

Today, the Doctrine of Man, Part 7.

For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonable faith.org.

Last time we looked at one of the most important of Paul's anthropological terms, namely soma or body.

Today, we want to turn to a second important anthropological term used by Paul in his letters,

and this is the word sarks.

I've already briefly mentioned this word sarks, which means flesh.

Theologians who are familiar with the word sarks know that in the New Testament

the flesh is often used metaphorically as a term for the evil proclivity,

which is in human beings.

This use of the term, therefore, is not referring to the physical stuff of our body.

The scripture does not teach that our bodies are evil because

they are material. But the flesh will often be used by Paul to represent fallen human nature.

Now this usage touches a very sensitive chord in theology

because in Germany where I studied at least, the Apostles' Creed affirms,

I believe in the resurrection of the flesh. That is to say, the flesh. In English, we say, I believe in the flesh. That is to say the flesh. In English we say I believe in the resurrection of the body. But in German it affirms I believe in the resurrection of the flesh.

And theologians are quite rightly nervous about any sort of affirmation that the flesh

in the sense of this evil fallen nature is going to be the object of the resurrection.

Because of this, they're prone to overlook the fact that Paul often uses the word sarks

in a morally neutral sense to mean basically organic stuff, the material out of which an animal's

body is made, the physical flesh, essentially meat, if you will. And in this morally neutral sense,

to affirm the resurrection of the flesh is unobjectionable, it is equivalent to believing

...