Sin Nature and the Sarx, how can Jesus be sinless if all flesh is evil Someone asked about sin nature and the answer they were given was that the word Sarx was translated as sin nature? In Greek Sarx just means flesh. So if Jesus came in the Sarx and was sinless how is that possible. Especially to my brothers who are Calvinist, how could Jesus be born in the Sarx if the flesh is inherently evil to God?
It's a problem of translating sarx into English. This article discusses precisely what you are inquiring, arguing why sarx doesn’t ever mean “sinful nature”.
Another excellent resource is this book excerpt on &quot;Sin in the theology of Paul&quot; by Tom Holland, author of Romans: The Divine Marriage.  It contains a wonderful analysis of the meaning of sarx in the OT, Hellenism, the Gospels, and the letters of Paul to signify various concepts depending on context: covenant relationship, human frailty, mankind, physical body, etc.
Some paragraphs from the book excerpt:

...
To summarize the OT's teaching on &quot;flesh&quot;, we can note that the term is morally neutral, speaking of man's creaturely existence and frailty. There is no lexicographical evidence to suggest that the term carried any negative moral connotation.
...
The translators of most English versions try to help their readers understand the term &quot;flesh&quot; by rendering it in ways they think appropriate. This seems reasonable, but, unfortunately, the translations often contradict the contexts in which the term is found. To translate flesh as &quot;sinful nature&quot; (as in the Romans passage under consideration) does not normally convey what Paul was writing but, instead, misrepresents him on a vitally important issue.
...

I highly recommend reading the whole 19 pages.