If those who maintain so insistently that the fleshly man is God's man, would only stop to consider what Jesus and his immediate followers said about the flesh, it would at least give them cause for serious thought. St. Paul says, "They that are in the flesh cannot please God." Can it be possible that anything of God's own creating "cannot please" Him? And would those who we know assuredly lived close to God, belittle and speak as did Paul of that for which He was even indirectly responsible?
The common theological view is, that the body contains the soul, as the shell does the kernel of the nut, and that the soul achieves heaven or is consigned to everlasting torment according to the use it has made of its opportunities while on earth. If this view were correct and man really needed this school of experience, then the "flesh" would certainly be an important implement in God's hands, however humble it might be intrinsically. But does not this leave us in something of a dilemma? Is it not disrespectful, to say the least, to speak slightingly of any factor in God's government? Would it be possible that the habitation in which the soul dwelt while working out its eternal salvation "profiteth nothing"? Yet this is what Christ Jesus declared.
It might of course be argued that in itself the body is of no value, though necessary as a means to an end. This would be to beg the question, however, for under any circumstances God would still be responsible for providing it as a means. Let any Bible student take his concordance, and read the many references in the New Testament under the heading "flesh." We are quite sure that the impression will be gained that in the minds of the writers of that time this particular kind of matter held no good in it, served no good purpose whatsoever, and simply could not have emanated from God.
