The topic of church, ekkelsia, is one of the central thought of the apostle Paul. In his writing there are many passages that deals with this topic. He used many metaphors and pictures to describe the church, such as the building or temple of God,, the Bride of Christ, people of God, Israel etc. However, the most distinctive picture of the church used by Paul is that of the Body of Christ.
This metaphor, the Body of Christ, has sparked debate among scholars as to the source of Paul’s concept of the church as the Body. There are many theories as to where Paul got his idea from, some suggesting the Greek idea of the polis, some suggesting the Gnostic influence of the Primal-man, and some proposed that he got the idea from his Damascus encounter of the living Lord. It could be possible that Paul may have formulated this idea out of his creative mind, and this seems more plausible than the rest of the speculations.
If the idea of the Body of Christ was Paul’s own creative idea, then it would be easier for us to understand his use of the metaphor in his different letters. He would have more freedom to modify his use in the different letters as the context required. In his letters where the concept of the Body is used intensively are Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians. The aim of this letter is to make an investigation of the use of the metaphor in these four letters to ascertain the similarity and differences.
The expression ‘body’ as designation of the church in Paul’s epistles have to be understood metaphorically, with paraenetic value. In Romans and 1 Corinthians, Paul used the picture to deal with the unity and diversity of the church of Christ. The main passages in Romans and 1 Corinthians that contain the expression are in 1 Corinthians 12.14ff and Romans 12.3ff.
In Romans 12, Paul started out the entire section with the admonition to present them as a living sacrifice to God as an act of spiritual service (vv1, 2). Then he exhorted the Romans believers to know their place in the community, to have a practical assessment of their role in the fellowship. He used the metaphor to show how different gifts can function and co-exist within one church.[1]
The key verse in this passage has to be verse 4 and 5, ‘(Rom 12:4) For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office:(Rom 12:5) so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another.’ Paul used the imagery to highlight the relationship between the members of the church. He compared the community of believers to that of the human body, which consist of many different members but working together to achieve a single objective – the health and well-being of the body. Similarly, the church is a single entity consisting of various and diverse people with individual functions.
The truth that is being delivered here in Romans 12 is threefold – 1. the unity of the church, the body, 2. the diversity of the members with corresponding giftings, and 3. the mutuality of the members.[2]
The Roman passage has the simplest concept of the Body as compared to the other epistles. The longest treatment of the theme of the ‘Body of Christ’ is found in the 1 Corinthian passage.
In 1 Corinthians the Body image serves as an illustration of the relation between the believers and Christ[3], which can be seen in 6.15 ‘your bodies are members of Christ’, and 6.17 ‘the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with him’. In addition, the body image also portrayed the closeness of the relationship between each believer. Paul, when speaking about the Lord’s supper, said ‘Is not the cup of blessing a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 6.15-17.’ Here it seems that our incorporation into the body of Christ is through our participation in the historical event of the Cross.
The main ‘Body’ passage is found in chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians, beginning at verse 12. This section can be subdivided to four parts – v12-13, v14-19, v20-26, and v27-30. The first part, v12-113, similarly sets forth the idea of the diversity and unity of the body of Christ as in the Roman passage (the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, they are many, are one body). This participation in the Body of Christ, is also through th e work of the Holy Spirit, it is the Holy Spirit who joined us to the Body (by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body).
The second part deals with the diversity of the body – For the body is not one member, but many. Thus each member is important and necessary, like the physical human body; there is no member which play an unimportant role. Therefore, there is no excuse for the foot to excuse itself because it is not the hand, or the ears because it is not the eyes. It is God who have placed each in his or her place in the body (God has placed the members…in the body, just as He pleased).
In the third portion, v20-26, Paul put forward to them the reality of the multiplicity of the function of the body, but yet there is only one body (there are many members, but one body). The variety of functions and gifts in the body should not be an excuse for division and schism in the body, but rather each should treat the other as more important and with honour (v22-25).
Paul summarised his teaching in v27 by bringing the two truths together, the unity and multiplicity of the body, by insisting that ‘you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it’. Thus, we make the same observation here that it is the same truths found in Romans that is being repeated here –1. the unity of the church, the body, 2. the diversity of the members with corresponding giftings, and 3. the mutuality of the members. There is , therefore, both in Romans and Corinthians a distinctive corporate view of the church which ‘excludes individualism, but leaves room for the use of individual abilities’[4], and each individual is equally essential and important to each other.
As such we can safely conclude that the use of the imagery of the human body, both in Romans and 1 Corinthians, is mainly used primarily to illustrate the relationship between the believers and how they should conduct themselves in this new community that they were being introduced to. It is a very vivid picture and simple to understand which Paul had used to bring across the point of unity in the church despite the multiplicity of abilities of every individual. This remind me of the advertisement by Aberdeem with the caption, ‘Asia has many faces’ yet it is one continent, similarly, the church had many members but it is One Body.
body and head in colossians and ephesians
There seems to be a development of the imagery of the body of Christ in Colossians and Ephesians. The fundamental idea is the same as in Romans and 1 Corinthians; there is also an important distinction. Both in Romans and 1 Corinthians the Body is identified entirely with the church, whereas, in Colossians and Ephesians, there is an addition of the head, Christ. In both Colossians and Ephesians the head is strictly distinct from the body, and how are we to understand this will be deliberated in this section.
The uses of the term ‘body’ in reference to the church is clear in many ways. The church has been repeatedly being referred to as the body of Christ (Eph 1.23, 3.12-13), believers are called members of the body (Eph 5.30). It is also used in the absolute sense (Eph 4.4, Col 1.18, 3.15, 2.19)[5]. This oneness of the believing community, as signified by the use of One Body, is clearly demonstrated in Eph 3.6 where the Gentiles are not only fellow heirs and partakers of the promise, they are also ‘συσσωμα’, ‘fellow body’.
The basic idea in Ephesians and Colossians is the same as in Romans and 1 Corinthians. Both groups affirm the only way to become members of the body is through our participation in the historical-redemptive event of the Cross. The church becomes one body when we all understood his work done on the cross, his suffering and death for the members of the body. This is clearly expressed in Eph 3.14-16, where the incorporation of the Jews and Gentiles is achieved through Christ having ‘broke down the barrier…abolishing in His flesh the enmity…make the two into one new man…reconcile them both in one body’[6]. Similar to the Romans and Corinthians passage, here in Ephesians it has to do also with the charismatic aspect of the church. It is God’s prerogative in the placing of the different members and their position in the body. The genuineness of the church is to be marked by its unity and diversity.
However, the Romans and Corinthians passage dealt mainly with the relationship of the believers and believing community, there is a greater emphasis in Ephesians and Colossians in regard to the Church’s relationship with the risen Christ. Thus, we see a greater focus on the supremacy and sovereignty of Christ in Ephesians and Colossians. This emphasis on the supremacy and sovereignty of Christ provides the context in which we are to understand the use of the ‘head’ metaphor to refer to Christ.
The head-body relationship is not to be understood in the framework of the physiological body. It is not to be understood in the sense that Christ is the Head, and his body is the church. It is not to be read in the context of the organic body, whereby the head is part of the organs of the body. This would be clear when we put the text back into its context in Ephesians and Colossians.
The physiological understanding of the head-body relationship[7] is difficult when we put the Ephesians and Colossians passage into its context. Believers are referred to as the whole body of Christ in Eph 4.16 and Col 2.19, now if it’s the whole/entire body then it could not be just the trunk, excluding the head. Furthermore, if the body has its existence in Christ, then Christ Himself could not be a subordinate part of His body. He cannot be a subset of the Body, the church. He has to be, and rightly so, the universal set with the church as the subset. It would be an inversion of order to understand Christ position as part of the church.
Looking closer at the Colossians passage would deny us of this perversion to place Christ under the church. In Colossians 1.15-20, Paul is talking about the supremacy of Christ, he is the ‘firstborn of all creation…all things were created …through him and for him…before all things…head of the body, the church….the beginning…firstborn form dead…so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything’. Thus, the imagery of head has to be understood with the meaning of lordship, master or leader. This is even clearer when we return to the Ephesians passage on marriage.
In Ephesians 5.22-33, the head-body relationship is applied to the marriage relationship. The husband is called the head of the wife (5.23) and the wife is referred to as the body (5.23,28). It would be absurd to conceive ‘of this as though the wife constituted the trunk of this unity of the two and the husband is the head’[8]. In addition, the use of the metaphor in Pauline writing is often in the absolute without reference to the body. This is evident in Col 2.10 where Christ is ‘the head over all rule and authority’, and this does not mean that ‘all rule and authority’ is also part of his body. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul wrote ‘Christ is the head of every man, and the man is head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. This, definitely, is not saying ‘that Christ therefore is the body of God, or every man the body of Christ’[9] or woman is the body of man. Similarly, Eph 1.13 ‘Christ is the head of all things to the church, which is His body’, then does this implies that Christ has two bodies – the church and all things?
Thus, what we have here is not one metaphor of the physiological body but two metaphors – the concept of head and the imagery of body. Then what does it mean by head of the body? The answer to this is found in Eph 5.23, the idea of head has to do with authority and rulership, as I have mentioned before. However, this is not raw power and naked authority, but derives form the work of Christ done on the cross. The headship of Christ is established upon his position as the ‘Savior of the body (Eph 5.23)’. ‘It says with respect to the relationship between Christ and the church that the church has its origin in him and that it therefore is dependent on him as the one who has prepared the way for it and to whom it owes its existence.’[10]
Thus, with respect to the above investigation, it is evidenced that the ‘head’ should not be understood as a ‘physiological’ entity as understood from the concept of the human body, rather it has to be seen from the idea of pre-eminence and lordship. It is conclusive that because of His position and work done on the cross that He is the head of the church, just as He is the head over everything, to control and direct the church, his body[11].
By way of concluding this paper, we should understand that the use of the body metaphor in Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians are essentially the same. There is no difference in the body imagery, all demonstrating the three truths - 1. the unity of the church, the body, 2. the diversity of the members with corresponding giftings, and 3. the mutuality of the members. The head imagery posed no conflict to the unity of Paul’s ‘body’ theme when we understood it within its correct context. Thus, there is no contrast to the reference of the church as the body of Christ in all the letters, because the ‘head’ picture is not part of the ‘body’ imagery. Both are not composite picture, rather they are two distinct yet very close metaphors that could easily be confused. All evidenced showed that the ‘head’ must not be understood as part of the ‘body’ but that it is a metaphor for Christ pre-eminence and Lordship over the church, because He is both the Savior and Preserver of the church, his body.
[1] Donald Gutheire, New Testament Theology (Illinios; Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), 744.
[2] Kenneth L. Barker & John R. Kohlenberger III, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, vol 2, New Testament (Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 583.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Guthrie, 744.
[5] Herman Ridderbos, Paul; An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), 377.
[6] Ridderbos, 377.
[7] Ibid., 380.
[8] Ridderbos, 381.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ridderbos, 381.
[11] Ibid.
This metaphor, the Body of Christ, has sparked debate among scholars as to the source of Paul’s concept of the church as the Body. There are many theories as to where Paul got his idea from, some suggesting the Greek idea of the polis, some suggesting the Gnostic influence of the Primal-man, and some proposed that he got the idea from his Damascus encounter of the living Lord. It could be possible that Paul may have formulated this idea out of his creative mind, and this seems more plausible than the rest of the speculations.
If the idea of the Body of Christ was Paul’s own creative idea, then it would be easier for us to understand his use of the metaphor in his different letters. He would have more freedom to modify his use in the different letters as the context required. In his letters where the concept of the Body is used intensively are Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians. The aim of this letter is to make an investigation of the use of the metaphor in these four letters to ascertain the similarity and differences.
The expression ‘body’ as designation of the church in Paul’s epistles have to be understood metaphorically, with paraenetic value. In Romans and 1 Corinthians, Paul used the picture to deal with the unity and diversity of the church of Christ. The main passages in Romans and 1 Corinthians that contain the expression are in 1 Corinthians 12.14ff and Romans 12.3ff.
In Romans 12, Paul started out the entire section with the admonition to present them as a living sacrifice to God as an act of spiritual service (vv1, 2). Then he exhorted the Romans believers to know their place in the community, to have a practical assessment of their role in the fellowship. He used the metaphor to show how different gifts can function and co-exist within one church.[1]
The key verse in this passage has to be verse 4 and 5, ‘(Rom 12:4) For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office:(Rom 12:5) so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another.’ Paul used the imagery to highlight the relationship between the members of the church. He compared the community of believers to that of the human body, which consist of many different members but working together to achieve a single objective – the health and well-being of the body. Similarly, the church is a single entity consisting of various and diverse people with individual functions.
The truth that is being delivered here in Romans 12 is threefold – 1. the unity of the church, the body, 2. the diversity of the members with corresponding giftings, and 3. the mutuality of the members.[2]
The Roman passage has the simplest concept of the Body as compared to the other epistles. The longest treatment of the theme of the ‘Body of Christ’ is found in the 1 Corinthian passage.
In 1 Corinthians the Body image serves as an illustration of the relation between the believers and Christ[3], which can be seen in 6.15 ‘your bodies are members of Christ’, and 6.17 ‘the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with him’. In addition, the body image also portrayed the closeness of the relationship between each believer. Paul, when speaking about the Lord’s supper, said ‘Is not the cup of blessing a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 6.15-17.’ Here it seems that our incorporation into the body of Christ is through our participation in the historical event of the Cross.
The main ‘Body’ passage is found in chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians, beginning at verse 12. This section can be subdivided to four parts – v12-13, v14-19, v20-26, and v27-30. The first part, v12-113, similarly sets forth the idea of the diversity and unity of the body of Christ as in the Roman passage (the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, they are many, are one body). This participation in the Body of Christ, is also through th e work of the Holy Spirit, it is the Holy Spirit who joined us to the Body (by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body).
The second part deals with the diversity of the body – For the body is not one member, but many. Thus each member is important and necessary, like the physical human body; there is no member which play an unimportant role. Therefore, there is no excuse for the foot to excuse itself because it is not the hand, or the ears because it is not the eyes. It is God who have placed each in his or her place in the body (God has placed the members…in the body, just as He pleased).
In the third portion, v20-26, Paul put forward to them the reality of the multiplicity of the function of the body, but yet there is only one body (there are many members, but one body). The variety of functions and gifts in the body should not be an excuse for division and schism in the body, but rather each should treat the other as more important and with honour (v22-25).
Paul summarised his teaching in v27 by bringing the two truths together, the unity and multiplicity of the body, by insisting that ‘you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it’. Thus, we make the same observation here that it is the same truths found in Romans that is being repeated here –1. the unity of the church, the body, 2. the diversity of the members with corresponding giftings, and 3. the mutuality of the members. There is , therefore, both in Romans and Corinthians a distinctive corporate view of the church which ‘excludes individualism, but leaves room for the use of individual abilities’[4], and each individual is equally essential and important to each other.
As such we can safely conclude that the use of the imagery of the human body, both in Romans and 1 Corinthians, is mainly used primarily to illustrate the relationship between the believers and how they should conduct themselves in this new community that they were being introduced to. It is a very vivid picture and simple to understand which Paul had used to bring across the point of unity in the church despite the multiplicity of abilities of every individual. This remind me of the advertisement by Aberdeem with the caption, ‘Asia has many faces’ yet it is one continent, similarly, the church had many members but it is One Body.
body and head in colossians and ephesians
There seems to be a development of the imagery of the body of Christ in Colossians and Ephesians. The fundamental idea is the same as in Romans and 1 Corinthians; there is also an important distinction. Both in Romans and 1 Corinthians the Body is identified entirely with the church, whereas, in Colossians and Ephesians, there is an addition of the head, Christ. In both Colossians and Ephesians the head is strictly distinct from the body, and how are we to understand this will be deliberated in this section.
The uses of the term ‘body’ in reference to the church is clear in many ways. The church has been repeatedly being referred to as the body of Christ (Eph 1.23, 3.12-13), believers are called members of the body (Eph 5.30). It is also used in the absolute sense (Eph 4.4, Col 1.18, 3.15, 2.19)[5]. This oneness of the believing community, as signified by the use of One Body, is clearly demonstrated in Eph 3.6 where the Gentiles are not only fellow heirs and partakers of the promise, they are also ‘συσσωμα’, ‘fellow body’.
The basic idea in Ephesians and Colossians is the same as in Romans and 1 Corinthians. Both groups affirm the only way to become members of the body is through our participation in the historical-redemptive event of the Cross. The church becomes one body when we all understood his work done on the cross, his suffering and death for the members of the body. This is clearly expressed in Eph 3.14-16, where the incorporation of the Jews and Gentiles is achieved through Christ having ‘broke down the barrier…abolishing in His flesh the enmity…make the two into one new man…reconcile them both in one body’[6]. Similar to the Romans and Corinthians passage, here in Ephesians it has to do also with the charismatic aspect of the church. It is God’s prerogative in the placing of the different members and their position in the body. The genuineness of the church is to be marked by its unity and diversity.
However, the Romans and Corinthians passage dealt mainly with the relationship of the believers and believing community, there is a greater emphasis in Ephesians and Colossians in regard to the Church’s relationship with the risen Christ. Thus, we see a greater focus on the supremacy and sovereignty of Christ in Ephesians and Colossians. This emphasis on the supremacy and sovereignty of Christ provides the context in which we are to understand the use of the ‘head’ metaphor to refer to Christ.
The head-body relationship is not to be understood in the framework of the physiological body. It is not to be understood in the sense that Christ is the Head, and his body is the church. It is not to be read in the context of the organic body, whereby the head is part of the organs of the body. This would be clear when we put the text back into its context in Ephesians and Colossians.
The physiological understanding of the head-body relationship[7] is difficult when we put the Ephesians and Colossians passage into its context. Believers are referred to as the whole body of Christ in Eph 4.16 and Col 2.19, now if it’s the whole/entire body then it could not be just the trunk, excluding the head. Furthermore, if the body has its existence in Christ, then Christ Himself could not be a subordinate part of His body. He cannot be a subset of the Body, the church. He has to be, and rightly so, the universal set with the church as the subset. It would be an inversion of order to understand Christ position as part of the church.
Looking closer at the Colossians passage would deny us of this perversion to place Christ under the church. In Colossians 1.15-20, Paul is talking about the supremacy of Christ, he is the ‘firstborn of all creation…all things were created …through him and for him…before all things…head of the body, the church….the beginning…firstborn form dead…so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything’. Thus, the imagery of head has to be understood with the meaning of lordship, master or leader. This is even clearer when we return to the Ephesians passage on marriage.
In Ephesians 5.22-33, the head-body relationship is applied to the marriage relationship. The husband is called the head of the wife (5.23) and the wife is referred to as the body (5.23,28). It would be absurd to conceive ‘of this as though the wife constituted the trunk of this unity of the two and the husband is the head’[8]. In addition, the use of the metaphor in Pauline writing is often in the absolute without reference to the body. This is evident in Col 2.10 where Christ is ‘the head over all rule and authority’, and this does not mean that ‘all rule and authority’ is also part of his body. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul wrote ‘Christ is the head of every man, and the man is head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. This, definitely, is not saying ‘that Christ therefore is the body of God, or every man the body of Christ’[9] or woman is the body of man. Similarly, Eph 1.13 ‘Christ is the head of all things to the church, which is His body’, then does this implies that Christ has two bodies – the church and all things?
Thus, what we have here is not one metaphor of the physiological body but two metaphors – the concept of head and the imagery of body. Then what does it mean by head of the body? The answer to this is found in Eph 5.23, the idea of head has to do with authority and rulership, as I have mentioned before. However, this is not raw power and naked authority, but derives form the work of Christ done on the cross. The headship of Christ is established upon his position as the ‘Savior of the body (Eph 5.23)’. ‘It says with respect to the relationship between Christ and the church that the church has its origin in him and that it therefore is dependent on him as the one who has prepared the way for it and to whom it owes its existence.’[10]
Thus, with respect to the above investigation, it is evidenced that the ‘head’ should not be understood as a ‘physiological’ entity as understood from the concept of the human body, rather it has to be seen from the idea of pre-eminence and lordship. It is conclusive that because of His position and work done on the cross that He is the head of the church, just as He is the head over everything, to control and direct the church, his body[11].
By way of concluding this paper, we should understand that the use of the body metaphor in Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians are essentially the same. There is no difference in the body imagery, all demonstrating the three truths - 1. the unity of the church, the body, 2. the diversity of the members with corresponding giftings, and 3. the mutuality of the members. The head imagery posed no conflict to the unity of Paul’s ‘body’ theme when we understood it within its correct context. Thus, there is no contrast to the reference of the church as the body of Christ in all the letters, because the ‘head’ picture is not part of the ‘body’ imagery. Both are not composite picture, rather they are two distinct yet very close metaphors that could easily be confused. All evidenced showed that the ‘head’ must not be understood as part of the ‘body’ but that it is a metaphor for Christ pre-eminence and Lordship over the church, because He is both the Savior and Preserver of the church, his body.
[1] Donald Gutheire, New Testament Theology (Illinios; Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), 744.
[2] Kenneth L. Barker & John R. Kohlenberger III, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, vol 2, New Testament (Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 583.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Guthrie, 744.
[5] Herman Ridderbos, Paul; An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), 377.
[6] Ridderbos, 377.
[7] Ibid., 380.
[8] Ridderbos, 381.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ridderbos, 381.
[11] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment