What’s the difference between the old man and the flesh?

This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘God’s Power for Salvation’ (2005).

Oh that's a very good question. This is what I would want to say myself, though I'm not speaking ex cathedra or anything like it and nothing approaching it. I give you my own opinion for what it is worth. I'm merely stating as clearly as I can what I myself believe, but it is all open to your questions and disputing. Try all things; hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

The old man is, in my thinking, the whole system of a man before he gets converted. His basic attitude underneath is still hostility to God. He still has his pride of independence. He has his ambitions; he has his principles. And the whole set up is that of a man who is not reconciled to God. This is the old man, and coming to Christ through repentance and conversion and being born again of the Spirit changes the whole setup of the man's attitude.

Now, if you ask me what the flesh is, well, the word flesh in the Bible could mean all sorts of things. It can mean 'the flesh of animals', for instance; that is, what you eat. It can simply mean the flesh we are made of, the flesh covering our bones. But flesh takes on a deeper sense. For instance, it is in the book of the Prophet Isaiah when, rebuking Israel for going down to Egypt to help, God is protesting about this and says, 'Why do you go down to Egypt to help? The Egyptians are men and not God. Their horses are flesh and not spirit' (see Isaiah 31:1–3). And when flesh is used in a bad sense in the Bible, it very frequently, as far as I understand, has that implication. It is man apart from the Holy Spirit, apart from the spirit of God. God calls that 'mere flesh'. From God's point of view, independence of God is of course foolishness indeed, because man is weak; he is merely flesh, and he is not spirit.

Flesh is therefore: man in independence of God, not relying on the Spirit, not relying on God, but in his own independent effort. And Paul lists the fruit of that in Galatians. 'The works of the flesh are . . .' (see Galatians 5:19–21). A man, independent of God, eventually becomes corrupt. That is why the whole business of justification by faith, which is the basis of our gospel, is so absolutely right. That man who is, like Saul was, very religious and, as far as you can tell, blameless by the law, he is obnoxious to God because he is doing it all in independence of God. 'That is the flesh,' says Paul, 'working in independence of God', as distinct from dependence on God, dependence on his Holy Spirit.

Can the believer work in the flesh and be 'carnal'?

A believer can be carnal, yes: 'fleshly'—sarkos or sarkinos. We can act in independence of the Lord if we are not careful. Witness 1 Corinthians: 'Are you not yet fleshly when one says, "I am of Paul"; "I am of Apollos"; "I am of Cephas", and you make divisions in the church, and then you all fall out and are against each other?' (see 1 Corinthians 3:1–4). That kind of thing, even in the church, says Paul, is 'fleshly'. That is acting as mere men in the flesh, not dependent on the spirit of God, and in contrast to God's directions.