The Body of Christ (I Corinthians 12)

In I Corinthians 12, what analogy is used by Paul to explain how members of the church should work together? The body

In writing to a divided Corinthian church (I Corinthians 1:11), Paul stresses unity. The apostle assures the Corinthians that they have all been endowed with spiritual gifts and that though they do not exhibit the same gifts, this was not grounds for division (I Corinthians 12:1-11). He then makes the natural progression from spirit(ual gifts) to body (I Corinthians 12:12-27). In doing so, he equates living out Christianity to functioning as the body of Christ.

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. (I Corinthians 12:12 NASB)

The analogy of the body was not uncommon in antiquity though Paul was likely the first to translate the metaphor into terms of religious communion.

Gordon D. Fee (b. 1934) comments:

In I Corinthians 12:12-26 Paul reinforces ...by means of a common political-philosophical analogy—the “body” politic now viewed as the “body” of Christ. He begins with the analogy by highlighting the two essentials, unity and diversity (one body, with many parts; I Corinthians 12:12, 14), and by focusing on their common experience of the Spirit in conversion as the key to unity (I Corinthians 12:13). But the essence of the elaborations of the analogy (especially I Corinthians 12:15-20) is the need for diversity if there is to be a true body and not simply a monstrosity. By its very nature the analogy shifts focus momentarily from the gifts per se to the diversity of people who make up the community in I Corinthians 12:21-26. (Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 583)

The metaphor stresses that Christians are all members of the same team. Anthony C. Thiselton (b. 1937) informs:

The so-called “weak” must not feel that if they happen to have not received certain gifts, they are somehow not a genuine part of the body [I Corinthians 12:15]...Paul reassures those who are anxious about comparisons with supposedly more “gifted” members, and underlines their role, status and welcome. On the other side, he rebukes “the strong” who seem to think that only those of similar social status and similar spiritual gifts are “real” Christians” [I Corinthians 12:20-21]. (Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 990)

Marion Soards (b. 1952) asserts that “in Christ unity dominates diversity and makes diversity genuinely meaningful and constructive (Soards, I Corinthians (New International Biblical Commentary), 263).”

Watchman Nee (1903-1972) relays the practical application:

It means that the children of God at Corinth are the Body of Christ; so, both according to the spiritual principle and the spiritual fact, they should express themselves as the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is the universal church, the church which is in all places and throughout all generations both in space and in time. However, the brothers in a locality must at least stand in the same position, applying the same principle to express the same fact. In other words, the minimum boundary of unity is the boundary of locality. (Nee, Further Talks on the Church Life, 109)

Does a functional hierarchy exist in the religious institutions with which you associate? Should it? What analogy would you use to describe the church? What part of the body do you see yourself as serving? Are there any unnecessary parts of the Christian body, e.g. is anyone the appendix? What is the basis of the unity of the body of Christ?

God is the architect of both the human body and its metaphorical counterpart. The Spirit of Christ should be strong enough to make all other differences minor by comparison. Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) relays:

In I Corinthians 12:13 Paul recalls for the Corinthians the basis of their unity in the one body: all of them, at the time of their conversion and initiation into the community of Christ’s people, were “in the Spirt...baptized into one body” and “made to drink one Spirit.” (Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 214)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) clarifies:

He [Paul] identifies the members of the community, first as “Christ” (I Corinthians 12:12), then as the “body of Christ” (I Corinthians 12:27), and eventually as “the church” (I Corinthians 12:28). As such, the many members of the Christian community must use all their diverse manifestations of the Spirit “to the good” (I Corinthians 12:7) of the whole, because Christ is the unifying principle of the church. (Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (The Anchor Yale Bible), 474)

Though Christ is clearing seen as the glue that holds the unit together, there is a glaring omission from Paul’s analogy as presented in I Corinthians 12. Alan F. Johnson (b. 1933) writes:

Curiously, he does not call Christ the “head” of the body in this chapter (but see Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:15-16, 5:23; Colossians 2:19). This may alert us that Paul is here (I Corinthians 12:12-30) using the body metaphor differently than in Ephesians and Colossians. Here the point is not the head-body metaphor but that many parts form one body...In Paul’s mind there is some sense in which the divinely constructed union (I Corinthians 12:13) of the many diverse parts—organically interrelated, interdependently, harmoniously and functionally one body—constitutes now through the Holy Spirit the reality of Christ’s visible presence and activity in the world. (Johnson, 1 Corinthians (IVP New Testament Commentary), 230)

Christ’s headship of the body of Christ is a prominent theme elsewhere in the Pauline epistles (I Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:13, 4:15-16, 5:23; Colossians 1:18, 2:19) including later in this particular letter. Jerome H. Neyrey (b. 1940) writes:

In I Corinthians 15:20-28 Paul speaks of Christ as the new Adam—the new head/source. On one level the argument simply states that as all die in Adam, so all rise in Christ (I Corinthians 15:21-22; see Romans 5:12-21). But the passage says much more...Like other Christians, Paul visualizes Christ’s headship by stating that “all things are put in subject under his feet” (I Corinthians 15:25, 27; see Hebrews 1:13, 2:6-8). Christ is head, both as source and sovereign. (Neyrey, Paul, in Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letters, 136)

Paul sees Christians as the embodiment of Christ in the world with one spirit dictating the body’s movements. Jürgen Becker (b. 1934) argues that for Paul, this is not a metaphor but rather a description of the living solidarity of those who share the same spirit.

In Paul the figurative and comparative use of the body idea as unity in diversity is still largely dominant. Yet because his theology is determined by the new christological being of the eschatalogical church, for him the comparison becomes a statement on the nature of the church. Now the church is the “body of Christ” (I Corinthians 12:27), not just comparable to the body. Through the one Spirit who expresses himself in the diversity of spiritual gifts, all are baptized into one body which is Christ (I Corinthians 12:12-13). (Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, 428)

Is “the body of Christ” merely a metaphor or a reality? How does the church act as Christ’s physical presence in the world? Historically, why has Christianity seen so many schisms? Why have most Christian divisions been rooted in the writings of Paul when the apostle strongly stressed unity? Is Christ the head of your church? Is Christ the head of your life?

“Yes, I see the Church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.” - Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, Why We Can’t Wait, p. 104

The Church’s 1 Foundation (I Corinthians 3:11)

Complete: For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid ______________.” Which is Jesus

Paul wrote to a divided Corinthian church (I Corinthians 1:10-12, 3:3). Its members exhibited varying allegiance to Paul, Apollos, Cephas [Peter] and Christ (I Corinthians 1:12). Paul drew upon the imagery of construction to help ease the tension. He drew them back to the bedrock:

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (I Corinthians 3:11 NASB)

Paul reminded the Corinthians that their allegiance was owed to Jesus and not any particular minister as Christ is the foundation. The analogy has stood through the centuries. The Catholic Church teaches, “Often, too, the Church is called the building of God (I Corinthians 3:9). The Lord compared himself to the stones which the builders rejected, but which was made into the corner stone (Matthew 21:42; cf. Acts 4:11; I Peter 2:7; Psalm 118:22). On this foundation the church is built by the apostles (cf. I Corinthians 3:11) and from it the church receives solidarity and unity (The Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition, 216).”

When updating a building, it is essential to do so in deference to the structure’s foundation. Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) summarizes, “The superstructure of the building (church) must conform to the pattern of that foundation. Otherwise it would be crooked and unstable (Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 54).” Anthony C. Thiselton (b. 1937) adds strongly, “Any other foundation would not merely make the building precarious, it would cease to exist as that building (Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 310).”

What is the foundation of your spiritual belief structure? What are the non-negotiables of your faith?

The division that the Corinthians church experienced two thousand years ago has characterized much of Christian history. In dealing with conflict, Paul points back to the foundation, the unifying principle - namely Jesus.

If you believe that a man died, was raised and because of that you have been granted salvation, what other common ground is needed? Are there any branches of Christianity’s tree that should not be able to cooperate with one another? If so, under what circumstances?

“Christ was called the foundation-stone (I Corinthians 3:11) because he bears everything and holds it.” - John Chrysostom (347-407), “My Father’s Working Still”

Peleg and The Great Divide (I Chronicles 1:19)

In whose days was the earth divided? Peleg’s (I Chronicles 1:19),

Peleg is a name that appears eight times in the Biblical record, all in genealogies (Genesis 10:25, 11:16, 17, 18, 19, I Chronicles 1:19, 25; Luke 3:35). He first appears amidst the “Table of Nations”, the record of the dispersing of Noah’s sons (Genesis 10). Twice the tantalizing detail is added that “in his [Peleg’s] days the earth was divided (Genesis 10:25; I Chronicles 1:19 NASB).” In fact, Peleg’s name actually means “division”. His very name commemorates a monumental event that made things different after his time than they were before it.

Peleg was born in the fifth generation (101 years) after the Flood and yet was the first patriarch born after the Flood to die. His father, Eber, lived 464 years (Genesis 11:16), but Peleg died at the age of 239. Eber outlived Peleg by 191 years and Noah and his son Shem were still living when Peleg died. No one after Peleg lived much longer than he did. The genealogies also take the highly irregular tact of mentioning Peleg’s brother, Joktan (Genesis 10:25; I Chronicles 1:19). Joktan’s name means “smallness” or “a lessening”. Life spans did indeed decrease dramatically after the time of Peleg and Joktan.

Do you have a moment in your life where things were not the same after an event as they were before? What division is Peleg related to and why is he so associated with it? Did Peleg in any way cause the division?

Traditionally, the split in Peleg’s time is associated with the failure of the Tower of Babel and the resulting diaspora (Genesis 11:1-9). James Ussher (1581-1656)’s famed chronology dates the Tower of Babel five years after the birth of Peleg. The connection between Peleg and Babel still represents the dominant view. Of the divisiveness, Walter Kaiser (b. 1933) writes “Here is a clear allusion to the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 118).” Proponents of the traditional view include G. Charles Aalders (1880-1961), Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941), Kaiser, C.F. Keil (1807-1888) and Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), H. C. Leupold (1892-1972), Henry M. Morris (1918-2006), Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) , John Sailhamer (b. 1946), and Richard T. White. Babel does mark an epic irrevocable change in human life as presumably the world went from one language to today’s estimated 7,299 primary languages.

Some segments of creation science pose that Peleg’s schism references a continental division. This theory holds that the earth was once a single landmass, often called Pangaea, and that Peleg lived at a time when a geological event precipitated continental drift. The belief that the contingents were once unified is supported by God’s command at creation to “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear (Genesis 1:9, NASB).”

Supporters of the continental drift view cite etymological considerations based on Peleg’s name which suggests that the division involved water. The associated noun peleg occurs ten times in the Old Testament and in each instance refers to water (Job 29:6; Psalms 1:3; 46:4, 65:9, 119:136; Proverbs 5:16; 21:1; Isaiah 30:25, 32:2; Lamentations 3:48).

Bernard E. Northrup (1925-2008) writes of the hydraulic connection to Peleg:

[Peleg, palag, or PLG] often contains within it a reference to water. It is used to refer to a stream of water in Hebrew, Coptic, Ethiopic and in Greek. The root is used to refer to irrigation canals which carried the water throughout the farming land of Mesopotamia. However, an examination of the Greek usage (of the family of Japeth) of the root letters PL and PLG clearly shows that in the majority of the instances this root was used of the ocean...It is used to mean: “to form a sea or lake,” “of places that are flooded and under water,” “of crossing the sea,” of “the broad sea” itself, of “being out at sea,” “on the open sea.” It is used of seamen and ships. The noun with the result suffix is used of “an inundation.” I continue: it is used of “a being at sea,” of “a creature of or on the sea,” of “one who walks on the sea,” of “running or sailing on the open sea,” of “a harbor that is formed in the open sea by means of sandbags,” and in many ways of “the open sea itself,” of “going to, into or toward the sea,” of “roving through the sea,” of “being sea-nourished,” of “turning something into the sea or into the sea or of flooding.” It is quite apparent that every Greek usage here involves the sea in someway. (Northrup, “Continental Drift and the Fossil Record,” Repossess the Land (Minneapolis: Bible Science Association, 1979), 165–166)

Donald Grey Barnhouse (1895-1960), Northrup and Alfred Wagener (1880-1930) support the view that continental drift occurred at the time of Peleg.

Other simpler theories have also been posited. One suggests that “divided” implies that the land was surveyed and divided into grids. The division could also be one between Peleg and his brother, Joktan. Genesis states Eber had “two sons”, a phrase which often denotes a territorial issue in Genesis. The Biblical genealogies follow Peleg’s line while Joktan became the father of Arabian people (Genesis 10:26-30).

Regardless of what event is being referenced, Peleg is associated solely with divisiveness.

Who do you most associate with divisiveness? Are you known more for divisiveness or unity? In what ways are you actively building bridges with others?