A friend of mine at church today asked a very good question: where does Paul get the concept of the body of Christ from?
It is a very good question because 'the body' is a very 'weird' concept, and secondly, unlike most other concepts in the NT, it does not seem to originate in either the OT or the ancient Mediterranean world.
On reflection there is only one place that it can come from and that is the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. However, it is still quite a leap from the words 'this is my body' to the sophisticated and multi-layered concept that it is so important to Paul and which he assumes the churches he writes to will understand.
I don't know quite how Paul came to add so much colour to the concept but I think he indicates how he made the connection from the Lord's supper to the church in 1 Cor 10:16-17:
The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
For Paul, the reason we are one body is because we all share in one body, and the body in both instances is 'of Christ'. The Lord's Supper forms the community that we are part of.
Of course, it is not the Lord's Supper that is ultimately the cause. It is one of many interconnected causes in different dimensions. We are one body because we have 'one Lord' and 'one God and Father of all', because we share these we have 'one faith' and 'one hope', which are communicated to us by 'one baptism' and 'one bread' (Eph 4:4-6; 1 Cor 10:17; 1 Cor 12:13).
Modern evangelicals tend to be happy to talk about our shared Lord and shared faith which join us together, but are unhappy to talk about the shared sacraments. Ritual is often then shunned as either pointless or even harmful. Others are more than happy to talk about the sacraments but lose sight of the Lord that gave them to us and that there is more come. For them ritual can become all there is and Christ is lost sight of because, for example, the sacrifice is happening 'here and now' which is more important than the 'then'.
No comments:
Post a Comment