Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 5
The lesson describes the Gnostic misuse of “those who are in the flesh cannot please God,” and Chrysostom mocks the literal reading (“Are we to cut our bodies in pieces?”); what does this teach about how to read Scripture responsibly, and where do you see modern Christians falling into different-but-similar interpretive errors?
Another way to ask: What does the Gnostic mistake about “in the flesh cannot please God” teach you about reading Scripture the right way? Where do you see Christians today making different but similar mistakes in how they interpret verses?

Direct Answer The transcript teaches that responsible Scripture reading must follow the author’s intended meaning and context, avoiding wooden literalism that creates absurd conclusions. Modern Christians can commit similar errors when they build doctrines from isolated proof texts while ignoring how the passage itself explains its terms.

Support from Transcript:

  • The Gnostics used Romans 8:8 as a “key proof text” to claim “the flesh is evil” and that Jesus “had not come in the flesh.”
  • Origen counters: “Those who live carnally fleshly cannot please God,” shifting “flesh” to a moral lifestyle.
  • Paul’s own context corrects a literal reading: in the next verse, believers are “in the Spirit, not in the flesh,” yet they “remain in our fleshly bodies.”
  • Chrysostom exposes the absurdity: “Are we to cut our bodies in pieces…? Would Paul have us be murderers to lead us to virtue?”
  • Bercot grounds the meaning biblically with Genesis 6: “He is flesh” refers to corrupt living, not merely having bodies.
Discussion Follow-ups Where do you see Christians today making “inconsistencies” by forcing a verse to mean something the surrounding context won’t allow?