Commentary on Romans 8:6-11

Romans 8 presents a rather somber narrative. In verses 18–30, Paul depicts creation as subjected to futility, characterized by a search for hope amid purposelessness. I see this passage as deeply realistic, highly relevant, and intriguingly paradoxical. Let me explain. First, it resonates with realism because, from both philosophical and theological perspectives, finding meaning is among the most difficult human tasks. Second, Paul’s view is relevant because we are ourselves in a crisis of meaning. And finally, it is paradoxical because, despite the perceived difficulty of finding grounding principles in our context, as humans we cannot aspire to a life worth living without some form of meaning.

Romans 8 begins with strong references to the flesh and the spirit. Paul compares the flesh without the spirit to creation without the Creator. Similar to how the Spirit redeems the flesh, creation’s suffering waits in the hope of God’s glory (verse 21).

In the Christian context, Paul’s mention of flesh often brings up sexual sin, lust, or generally giving in to “negative influences in the world.” The term “flesh” refers to the physical part of our bodies, the very core of our being. Physicality appears related also to moral corruption and spiritual decline. As Paul explains, living according to the flesh is very different from living according to the spirit, even though the exact meanings of these concepts are somewhat unclear. In Romans 7:25, he says that with his mind he serves God’s law, but his flesh serves the law of sin.

It is hardly surprising that “flesh” has become linked with immorality, leading to a long-standing ascetic tradition. Punishing the flesh, if we follow this development, is a way to force the body to submit solely to the soul. Many scholarly works have examined Paul’s dualism—or lack thereof—and explored the possible influences of Plato, Neoplatonism, and other Hellenic philosophical traditions. These are indeed important issues that require careful thought to interpret Pauline anthropological assumptions accurately. However, my focus here is on a somewhat different question: What are the implications for communal living when we see the flesh as material? What are the implications for our sense of belonging when we see creation unhinged from meaning?

Some scholars have argued that the term “flesh” in Paul’s writings may encompass not only the physical body, with its accompanying passions and emotions, but also the seemingly insatiable desire for material possessions and the inclination to adhere to the societal norms that imperial powers impose. When applied to contemporary society, living according to the flesh could be interpreted as embodying a capitalist ideology. Similarly, Paul’s portrayal of creation as “suffering” and “waiting eagerly for the revealing of the children of God” (8:19) echoes our contemporary global context where creation is at the service of exploitative ideas and practices.

There is considerable consensus that our current unchecked capitalist mindset fundamentally contradicts core biblical values. In this interpretation, Paul’s assertion in Romans 8:8 that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” could be seen as a reiteration of the sentiments expressed in Matthew 6:25 and Luke 6:13. Similarly, the idea that creation “will be set free from its bondage to decay” (Romans 8:21) functions as warning against those who identify Christianity with unfettered free markets.

So, what is the valence of the flesh and the material world as we think of how to live according to Paul’s ethical invitations?

It is prevalent in cultural narratives, both past and present, to ascribe specific values to individuals based on their identities. For example, within North American culture, African Americans have often been subject to sexualization, while their physicality is frequently viewed as more resilient to suffering. Similarly, women seem inherently more sensual, with their sexuality often carrying negative connotations. The concept of purity is also differently construed between men and women. These phenomena, while significant, are less about the idea of “flesh” itself and more closely connected to the societal frameworks and ideologies that shape our understanding of what is considered material.

The letters of Paul are not immune to these cultural dynamics, as they reflect the prevailing societal attitudes toward the body and its role. We must remember, for instance, that first-century Rome operated within a slave society that regarded slaves as mere “flesh” devoid of spirit and similarly viewed free women as especially vulnerable to base fleshly desires.

Romans 8:9 states that believers dwell not “in the flesh” but “in the Spirit,” specifically the Spirit of Christ, which imparts life even when the body is rendered mortal due to sin. Paul further emphasizes that distinctions such as slave or free, male or female, are inconsequential in Christ (Galatians 3:28). This seemingly egalitarian passage continues to be aspirational, but we should notice that Paul himself did not entirely live up to the idea.

For example, in Galatians, Paul draws a significant connection between flesh and Hagar/slavery. This complex theological discourse is rooted in a rich Hebrew Bible narrative. Notably, Paul contrasts Hagar and her descendants as those born “according to the flesh,” with Sarah’s son, born “according to the Spirit” (a similar argument is made in Romans 9:8).

In this context, we observe a series of dichotomies—though not all equally robust and some influenced by later interpretations—such as flesh/spirit, slavery/freedom, Judaism/Christianity, and the tension between the roles of persecutor and persecuted. These dichotomies are informed by cultural and theological associations that link body and flesh to concepts often associated with condemnation.

From these reflections, we may say that “flesh” sparks ambivalence; it possesses the potential for constructive interpretation or perilous consequences. The outcome largely depends on the specific context, the message we aim to convey, and the theoretical framework we bring into the discussion. The same considerations apply to our understanding of creation (Romans 8:18–21). We could read Paul as saying that creation is suffering because of how we have created an economic system that invalidates our humanity, or we could interpret Paul as disengaged with the material circumstances of our own destruction. While in the first case we are called to action, in the second we remain complicit with the pernicious effects of a disembodied faith.