It sounds from the comments as though you mean literally meat (for eating) made from a dead god (or someone posing as a god).
If that's the case then "the flesh of the god" does make sense as a title. It is somewhat ambiguous, but it sounds as though the story itself resolves that ambiguity. So it's ambiguous in an interesting way.
It's (IMO) a better title without the leading "the", because it's briefer and slightly more ambiguous whether you're using 'flesh' figuratively or literally (which makes it more interesting IMO). But that's a matter of personal style/preference really.
The ambiguity will be between:
The soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of a human or an animal
The human body and its physical needs and desires, especially as contrasted with the mind or the soul
II. Extended and figurative uses (chiefly of Biblical origin).
- one's (own) flesh : one's near kindred or descendants. Now rare exc. in flesh and blood n.
with a hint of
9 c. The body (of Christ) regarded as spiritually ‘eaten’ by believers; also applied mystically to the bread in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
So a reader encountering it for the first time could be unsure whether you mean "kindred of the gods" or "meat made from a god" or "remarkably good meat", and there's also the slightly unsettling implication of a reference of transubstantiation. Which on the whole makes it a good title in my opinion, because (if I understand correctly) you intend both of those first two meanings.