[Title change]: The unity of Christ to the Body (the Church)

[cyberjosh]

The first time I read a book that proposed the possible deeper implications on this verse it shocked me. I immediately wanted to revolt from the idea that the head in Paul's metaphor could possibly refer to Jesus as the head. But as I contemplated more and more on the mystery of Christ and how much he gave up for us and died for to be one with us it does seem that Christ's sacrifice requires and infact expects such a unity, for it was its very purpose. The verse in question is 1 Corinthians 12:21 which says, "And the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you'; or again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of you'". Who else is the head except Christ? In only the preceding chapter Paul said, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:3), and in the parallel verse in Ephesians, "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body" (Ephesians 5:23). And even here we see Christ as submissive to the Father as His head, to carry out the Father's will (at such a cost!!!) to die for man to unite them to Christ and God that God may sum all things up in Christ (Ephesians 1:10).

Another thing I was slow to accept is that Christ indeed still has a "body". And incorruptable one yes, as we too will have upon the ressurection (1 Corinthians 15), but none-the-less a body. Notice that Christ will still be called "Son of Man" when he returns (per Daniel). I remember talking to my Dad once as he was working in the kitchen and I said, "Surely Jesus doesn't still have the holes in his hands and feet in heaven," and my Dad stopped what he was doing and looked at me and said, "Really? Why not?" And I faltered for a moment and futilely tried to shoot down the idea by mentioning all the references in Scripture to the "Spirit of Christ," but as my Dad brought home to me this does not negate the possibility of Christ having a body. When Christ emptied himself and became our true High Priest to whom he can relate he held back nothing. It was a true sacrifice, even to the point of assuming a subordinate role in the Trinity (thus God the Father being the head of Christ). Christ still has a body as an eternal witness of who He is and what He has done.

How that ties into this topic though is to further the reality of the unity of the body of believers, and Christ being an inseperable part of that body as the head. What Christ has done is irreversable and we who believe are now united with Christ and even already seated in Heaven with Christ (as per Colossians). We will be united to him as the bride and the two will become "one flesh (read: spiritual body)". We are in Christ and he in us. We cannot say to Christ, "We have no need of you" but even more amazingly Christ cannot say to the body he died for and is united to, "I do not need you[/color]"! What a revelation! Why did this not occur to me before?

What do you think about this idea?

Edit: I have digressed from this original idea, and no longer have the same beliefs about the issue I did when I came across it for the first time.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

I found a publication of the Vatican which also takes notice of the Head in some wise needing the members. Not to say I agree with everything said, but I do agree with the principle:

44. Because Christ the Head holds such an eminent position, one must not think that he does not require the help of the Body. What Paul said of the human organism is to be applied likewise to the Mystical Body: "The head cannot say to the feet: I have no need of you."[69] It is manifestly clear that the faithful need the help of the Divine Redeemer, for He has said: "Without me you can do nothing,"[70] and according to the teaching of the Apostle every advance of this Mystical Body towards its perfection derives from Christ the Head.[71] Yet this, also, must be held, marvelous though it may seem: Christ has need of His members. First, because the person of Jesus Christ is represented by the Supreme Pontiff, who in turn must call on others to share much of his solicitude lest he be overwhelmed by the burden of his pastoral office, and must be helped daily by the prayers of the Church. Moreover as our Savior does not rule the Church directly in a visible manner, He wills to be helped by the members of His Body in carrying out the work of redemption. That is not because He is indigent and weak, but rather because He has so willed it for the greater glory of His spotless Spouse. Dying on the Cross He left to His Church the immense treasury of the Redemption, towards which she contributed nothing. But when those graces come to be distributed, not only does He share this work of sanctification with His Church, but He wills that in some way it be due to her action. This is a deep mystery, and an inexhaustible subject of meditation, that the salvation of many depends on the prayers and voluntary penances which the members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ offer for this intention and on the cooperation of pastors of souls and of the faithful, especially of fathers and mothers of families, a cooperation which they must offer to our Divine Savior as though they were His associates.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_ ... ti_en.html

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

I would like to hear someone's opinion on this for personal accountability reasons. If I go too far on one point theologically its always good to have a system of checks and balances to make sure one doesn't go outside proper bounds.

Anyone?

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[unred typo]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

Sorry, Josh, but I don't agree.

The verse in question is 1 Corinthians 12:21 which says, "And the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you'; or again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of you'". Who else is the head except Christ? In only the preceding chapter Paul said, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:3), and in the parallel verse in Ephesians, "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body" (Ephesians 5:23). And even here we see Christ as submissive to the Father as His head, to carry out the Father's will (at such a cost!!!) to die for man to unite them to Christ and God that God may sum all things up in Christ (Ephesians 1:10).

This is why we hate analogies. Whenever I have a perfectly good analogy that illustrates a point I am desperately trying to get across, someone invariably takes it beyond where it was intended to go. The point was that the members of the body are made to fit together and one isn’t to say it doesn’t need the other, even if your hand may not see the need for the hearing, the body needs all the parts. The body needs all the parts. Jesus is not included in the analogy. He has no need for the body, because he has all power and could do all things without one single part of the body; the church. It pleases him to fit believers together like a body made up of different unique parts that work together to do his work, but he needs them like he needs a hole in the head.

If you are going to insist that Jesus is the head in this illustration who needs the body to survive, or to do his work, you are being a cancer cell who grows off in another direction instead of understanding what it’s function really is.

 

[Devekut]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

"And the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you'; or again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of you'". Who else is the head except Christ?

We cannot say to Christ, "We have no need of you" but even more amazingly Christ cannot say to the body he died for and is united to, "I do not need you"! What a revelation! Why did this not occur to me before?

Josh I have to agree with your original analaysis and the Vatican document. As marvelous as it is, Christ, the Head, is in need of the members of His Body. Less this come across as heresy against the omnipotence of God, we have to keep in mind the nature and purpose of the Mystical Body of Christ which is the instrument, purified by Christ's blood and made open to us through His death and Resurrection, that has been set aside for the corporate salvation of humankind.

All human beings are drawn to Jesus by the Father, true, but without free and conscious human consent there is no true faith and therefore no true redemption. Every life lived in Christ is an excercise of the freedom of will that gives creation purpose and authentic responsiveness to God. Christ died to bring all into His Body but the Communion of the Faithful (the Church) is not possible as a corporate entity unless those faithful co-operate with Christ.

To be more precise, without the co-operation of the faithful (the members of the Body), there would be no sociological sign of Christ's redemptive work on the Cross, there would be no Body calling the members of every nation to repentence in Christ's name. God intends that our salvation comes not solely by means of our individual encounter with Christ. Or more succinctly put, God intends that our individual encounter with Christ be facilliated by communal means. The Body of Christ is Christ on earth. That is us, here and now. Christ requires our co-operation for this vision, inseparable from the proper excercise of free will, to be fulfilled.

unred typo
If you are going to insist that Jesus is the head in this illustration who needs the body to survive, or to do his work, you are being a cancer cell who grows off in another direction instead of understanding what it’s function really is.

But that is exactly it. When we fail to be obedient to the Head we actually impede His intentions from becoming actuality. Respecting our freedom, He does not override us but calls us back into communion with Him so that it is Him who is expressed in us and His will that is accomplished through us.

 

[unred typo]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

quote by Devekut on Mon Oct 22, 2007:
"And the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you'; or again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of you'". Who else is the head except Christ?


We cannot say to Christ, "We have no need of you" but even more amazingly Christ cannot say to the body he died for and is united to, "I do not need you"! What a revelation! Why did this not occur to me before?



Josh I have to agree with your original analaysis and the Vatican document. As marvelous as it is, Christ, the Head, is in need of the members of His Body. Less this come across as heresy against the omnipotence of God, we have to keep in mind the nature and purpose of the Mystical Body of Christ which is the instrument, purified by Christ's blood and made open to us through His death and Resurrection, that has been set aside for the corporate salvation of humankind.

All human beings are drawn to Jesus by the Father, true, but without free and conscious human consent there is no true faith and therefore no true redemption. Every life lived in Christ is an excercise of the freedom of will that gives creation purpose and authentic responsiveness to God. Christ died to bring all into His Body but the Communion of the Faithful (the Church) is not possible as a corporate entity unless those faithful co-operate with Christ.

To be more precise, without the co-operation of the faithful (the members of the Body), there would be no sociological sign of Christ's redemptive work on the Cross, there would be no Body calling the members of every nation to repentence in Christ's name. God intends that our salvation comes not solely by means of our individual encounter with Christ. Or more succinctly put, God intends that our individual encounter with Christ be facilliated by communal means. The Body of Christ is Christ on earth. That is us, here and now. Christ requires our co-operation for this vision, inseparable from the proper excercise of free will, to be fulfilled.

Christ does use us to accomplish his will and do his work. I agree with that. I disagree that Christ needs the body like a head needs a body in order to survive or do any work. The point of the illustration is that the members of the body need each other, not that Christ needs us.

quote by Devekut:

unred typo: “If you are going to insist that Jesus is the head in this illustration who needs the body to survive, or to do his work, you are being a cancer cell who grows off in another direction instead of understanding what it’s function really is.â€Â


But that is exactly it. When we fail to be obedient to the Head we actually impede His intentions from becoming actuality. Respecting our freedom, He does not override us but calls us back into communion with Him so that it is Him who is expressed in us and His will that is accomplished through us.

True. We can impede the work of Christ by not being obedient to his leading, but only the work that he intended to do through us. His hands are not tied behind his back while he uses our hands to do his will. He will accomplish whatever he intends to do, with or without us. It is our privilege and honor to work for him. If we neglect our calling, we only lose our reward, we don’t stop the kingdom of God from advancing. God can and does speak through his Holy Spirit, in dreams and visions, in our thoughts and through scripture and through any other means he wishes to use, whether we are obedient or not. Without him, we can do nothing but without us, he can accomplish all things with all the power and authority of God.

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

[Edit]

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

Sorry, Josh, but I don't agree.

That's fine, I respect your opinion. That's why I'm willing to talk this out until we can come to a conclusion.

This is why we hate analogies. Whenever I have a perfectly good analogy that illustrates a point I am desperately trying to get across, someone invariably takes it beyond where it was intended to go. The point was that the members of the body are made to fit together and one isn’t to say it doesn’t need the other, even if your hand may not see the need for the hearing, the body needs all the parts. The body needs all the parts. Jesus is not included in the analogy.

You are mostly right but you are overlooking one crucial thing: the body is nothing, not even a body - and cannot accomplish unity - apart from Christ. Christ of necessity must be all throughout the body, as holding it together and part of it, and cannnot be seperated from it.

You then might say, "Well if Jesus is truely the whole body then how can he be said to be just the head sometimes?" Good question, and here we would accuse the analogy that Paul uses of inadequacy if we reject both as true. Paul says in Ephesians 4:15, "But speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love." The whole body is spoken as doing the growing, yet it is growing up into the head: Jesus. Yet is not the head a member of the whole body?

Not to mention you have to realize that Paul in Corinthians when he says "the head cannot say to the feet..." if he is not refering to Jesus as the head it would be the only instance in the NT where the head of the body does not refer to Christ. It would have to be an exception, and for such an exception it would require quite an explanation.

He has no need for the body, because he has all power and could do all things without one single part of the body; the church.

We are the body of Christ, how can He not need the body to which He is joined? The "vine and the brances" have an inseperable relation. If Christ truely is in us and if Christ is God then when the Bible says, "If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself" (2 Timothy 2:13) this means that the elect body of Christ, who is united to Christ and God, thus cannot be denied, for "God cannot deny Himself" nor Himself in us if I may be so bold as to apply a principle.

It pleases him to fit believers together like a body made up of different unique parts that work together to do his work, but he needs them like he needs a hole in the head.

Not as if Christ (and it may theologically rest on the fact that the Son and not the Father - directly - is the immediate head of the body, and it was the Son who became flesh) is dependant on us for power or righteousness or any of these things but that upon joining himself to us he cannot deny us. Christ works in his people, not apart from them.

If you are going to insist that Jesus is the head in this illustration who needs the body to survive, or to do his work, you are being a cancer cell who grows off in another direction instead of understanding what it’s function really is.

Not to survive, it never specifically elaborated on the nature of the 'need'. Rather since it is in the negative "don't need", and saying that you can't say you don't need the other members, it can simly imply that the two cannot work apart and at the same time be part of the same body, for a body that does two different things in different sections of the body under two different laws of operation cannot actually be said to be a functioning body, nor even a unified one. Yet the very nature of the Church is unity in Christ.

Tell me your thoughts.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[unred typo]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

Josh, I don’t care to argue about this. I can’t explain how an analogy works here no matter how long and boring my posts get. If I say my granddaughter is as fresh as rain, you can’t then go on to say I mean she is wet like rain or transparent or heaven sent, even if those things were true. My point was she is fresh like rain. You can’t defile the analogy with further extractions of the meaning from the elements in it. The fact that Paul uses the head as just another part of the body in his illustration, and not as head (controller) of the body is significant here. Jesus is not the head here. If he is, then he is a head that has no eyes, or ears because they are mentioned as separate pieces from each other and the hand. If he has to be the head because he is the head in other places where the body is mentioned, is he also the hand that holds you and no one can pluck you out of? Read these verses:

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Does the head of every man need every man? Every man needs the Lord but the reverse is not true. God could raise up stones to do his bidding. He allows us the privilege of working for him.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

This verse shows that when the illustration calls Jesus the head of the body, he is not to be counted as dependant upon the body, but savior of it.

As you can tell, I am not a big fan of taking the parables and importing one facet into another. The results are absurd. It is the reader’s responsibility to determine the point that the writer is attempting to convey with an analogy and not turn it inside out to make other propositions that were not intended by the author. Don’t you think if Paul had meant to say that Christ had need of the members of the body just like a head needs feet and hands, he would have said so? Paul is only saying that we are members of a body and we need each other. Sometimes the mouth needs a hand to get a foot dislodged.

:

 

[Devekut]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

Unred,

I think you are really dimishing the biblical concept of the "Body of Christ". It is not a "mere analogy", but it is the fruit of Christ's very work in His Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. It was He who was incarnated into a body, His body that suffered and rose, He who said on the night that he was betrayed "Take this and eat it, for this is my Body".

Christ gives up His body to us so that He might bring us into it. It is a "mystical Body" but a real Body nonetheless. By this I do not mean that "body" is not an analogy. What I am saying it is not a "mere analogy". There is real metaphysical, spiritual and in some sense physcial corporate unity among those in Christ. All this is brought about by the offering of His actual Body to us. This is the why Paul is so adamant about Church unity:

"Now I appeal to you brothers and sisters, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose". (1 Corin. 1:10)

A body that does not work in unity with its members can not accomplish its task. In order for the Body of Christ to work it requires the free submission of its members to the Head. God could have brought about salvation to the world in other ways, but he chose to do it in a way that makes the Head dependent on the rest members.

 

[unred typo]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

quote by Devekut on Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:30 am
Unred,

I think you are really dimishing the biblical concept of the "Body of Christ". It is not a "mere analogy", but it is the fruit of Christ's very work in His Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. It was He who was incarnated into a body, His body that suffered and rose, He who said on the night that he was betrayed "Take this and eat it, for this is my Body".

Christ gives up His body to us so that He might bring us into it. It is a "mystical Body" but a real Body nonetheless. By this I do not mean that "body" is not an analogy. What I am saying it is not a "mere analogy". There is real metaphysical, spiritual and in some sense physcial corporate unity among those in Christ. All this is brought about by the offering of His actual Body to us. This is the why Paul is so adamant about Church unity:

"Now I appeal to you brothers and sisters, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose". (1 Corin. 1:10)

A body that does not work in unity with its members can not accomplish its task. In order for the Body of Christ to work it requires the free submission of its members to the Head. God could have brought about salvation to the world in other ways, but he chose to do it in a way that makes the Head dependent on the rest members.

I am not trying to diminish anything. I want some interpretive integrity and I’m frankly tired of people taking a verse and winding it up and sending it off on some tangent. The point of Paul’s analogy is that we should not act like we have no need of other members of the body, just because we serve different functions. That’s it. He is not making any statement about Christ needing ears or eyes or feet attached to his head. Christ is not, *repeat: not*, the head in this analogy. In the analogy of the bride of Christ, he is not the head, he is the groom. In the analogy of the serpent being stomped, he is not the head, the serpent’s head is crushed by his heel. By making Christ as the head in this analogy, you have extrapolated out another erroneous idea. Not that unusual these days, unfortunately. I wasn’t even going to answer this post but Josh did say:

I would like to hear someone's opinion on this for personal accountability reasons. If I go too far on one point theologically its always good to have a system of checks and balances to make sure one doesn't go outside proper bounds.

Anyone?

In the spirit of one part of the body helping another, I thought I would give my honest opinion. Perhaps I was too harsh but you know how we hate/love analogies. LOL.

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

Unread,

I try not to put all my eggs into one basket, so I'm not banking on this one particular aspect of the analogy. However at the very least, even if head was meant to refer to some other function of the Church, I find this train of thought a useful opportunity to use as a lens to examine more closely how unified we are in Christ. I looked at that idea as an agent of advancement in my understanding and emphasis of what Christ truely gave up to be with us. So with just those points in mind (divorced from the analogy) could you answer my applications that I made in my last post? For example I mentioned that Christ cannot deny Himself in us, among other things which would be nice if you could respond to as well.


I would appreciate it. Thanks.

~Josh

 

[Devekut]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

The passage in question here is 1 Corinthians 12:21 where Paul speaks of the Body of Christ and says that all members must work with one another and writes "the head can not say to the feet, I do not need you".

Now if Christ's Body is truly a Body, would this not be true of His Body as well? Would we not be speaking falsely about the Church if we said that it is a Body who's head does not really need its members in order to be a body? The Body of Christ is not merely analgoy, Christ's Body is truly a Body and it is in the nature of a Body to neccessitate co-operation amongst its members, deny this and Christ's Body becomes something wholly alien to us. There can not be co-operation among its members unless we submit ourselves in obedience, hence, the Church can not be Christ's Body apart from its own desire to be so. This is how the "head" needs its members.

 

[unred typo]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

So you want to make up your own analogy about what the church is like, go ahead, knock yourself out. Just don’t try to tell me that is what Paul meant by what he wrote. The head in Paul’s analogy is not Christ. Christ can say to his church, I have no need of you. He loves us but he doesn’t need us. He has made us dependant on one another, but he is not dependant upon anyone. He is self sufficient. As for our interdependence upon each other, the body is pretty lame. The only parts that seem to work at all are the mouth and the tongue.

 

[Devekut]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

I am not making my own analogy. We are making sense of the one that Paul made. If we are Christ's Body and the Head of the Body is Christ, what is so wild about saying that the Head is dependent on the Body in the manner that heads are dependent on bodies?

To say this is not so is inconsistent. If it were not so, the analagy would be useless. Paul is not just calling Christians "a body", he specificially calls us Christ's Body. The Body that he describes never just includes us but is also Christ's. Look at every instance Paul speaks of Christians as composing a Body and ask yourself how many times he calls Christians members of Christ's Body. We are only a body insofar as we are in Christ.

Christ can say to his church, I have no need of you

Of course, but this is not what He desires, is it? My point all along has been that Christ desires salvation to be accomplished through the members which He has incorporated into Himself. God has a vision of salvation that neccessitates our submission, the logical implication is that without our submission this desire of God's can not be completed. Christ is dependent on the members of His Body because God desires it to be so.

 

[unred typo]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

quote by Devekut on Thu Oct 25, 2007:
I am not making my own analogy. We are making sense of the one that Paul made. If we are Christ's Body and the Head of the Body is Christ, what is so wild about saying that the Head is dependent on the Body in the manner that heads are dependent on bodies?

To say this is not so is inconsistent. If it were not so, the analagy would be useless. Paul is not just calling Christians "a body", he specificially calls us Christ's Body. The Body that he describes never just includes us but is also Christ's. Look at every instance Paul speaks of Christians as composing a Body and ask yourself how many times he calls Christians members of Christ's Body. We are only a body insofar as we are in Christ.

You are not making sense of anything Paul said. You are making nonsense out of a perfectly good analogy. Jesus needs the body of Christ more like you need your car. It’s great when it runs right, but when it quits working and you still have to pay for it, it becomes a detriment. The point of Paul’s analogy is that we are supposed to run like a fine tuned automobile. The parts work together to make the body move and perform a function for the driver. Does the driver need the car? Sure, but if the thing becomes a piece of junk, he gets another one, he doesn’t die with his car. Christ is not going to die if the body dies, is he? Christ does NOT need the body just like a head needs a body. Your stretching of this analogy is absurd.

quote by Devekut:

Unred said:“Christ can say to his church, I have no need of youâ€Â

Of course, but this is not what He desires, is it? My point all along has been that Christ desires salvation to be accomplished through the members which He has incorporated into Himself. God has a vision of salvation that neccessitates our submission, the logical implication is that without our submission this desire of God's can not be completed. Christ is dependent on the members of His Body because God desires it to be so.

The analogy of the vine and the branches is more like what we are like as a church to Christ. What does scripture say about the vine’s ‘need’ of the branches? If a branch fails to perform and yield, it is cut off as a branch and burned. New branches can be grafted in but the new branches shouldn’t get boastful against the branches that were cut off, because if they don’t yield fruit, they can be cut off and the old ones grafted back in.

There is an analogy in which Christ is said to be head of the body.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

In what way is Christ like a head over the body? It is in the simple fact that Jesus is the controller of the body. The head determines where the feet will go, what the hands will do, and when it will rest. It is the eyes and ears of the body, watching for dangers, giving directions, leading the body to do the work that the head decides should be done. It is the head makes the arm pick up the spoon with which the body is nourished and the head that makes the decisions as to what food the body needs. The head is the savior of the body. That is how the headship of Christ is to be viewed. Your attempt to make the tail wag the dog is ludicrous. Give it up.

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

Unred,

Did you see my last post to you?

~Josh

 

[unred typo]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

quote by cybershark5886 on Fri Oct 26, 2007:
Unred,

Did you see my last post to you?

~Josh

yes, I did actually. You mean this one:

quote by cybershark5886 on Thu Oct 25, 2007:
Unread,
I try not to put all my eggs into one basket, so I'm not banking on this one particular aspect of the analogy. However at the very least, even if head was meant to refer to some other function of the Church, I find this train of thought a useful opportunity to use as a lens to examine more closely how unified we are in Christ. I looked at that idea as an agent of advancement in my understanding and emphasis of what Christ truely gave up to be with us. So with just those points in mind (divorced from the analogy) could you answer my applications that I made in my last post? For example I mentioned that Christ cannot deny Himself in us, among other things which would be nice if you could respond to as well.
I would appreciate it. Thanks.
~Josh

Ok, Josh. I’ll go back and re-read your last post that refers me back to your previous post. When I wrote back, I was replying to both of you in general. If you want a blow by blow, I can do that. You probably won’t like it. Just to make sure I don’t miss anything, let me just redo the whole thing for your reading pleasure. :

quote by cybershark5886:
You are mostly right but you are overlooking one crucial thing: the body is nothing, not even a body - and cannot accomplish unity - apart from Christ. Christ of necessity must be all throughout the body, as holding it together and part of it, and cannnot be seperated from it.

You mean like leaven hid in three measures of flour? Ooops. Leaven always means something evil in parables, doesn’t it?

quote by cybershark5886:
You then might say, "Well if Jesus is truely the whole body then how can he be said to be just the head sometimes?" Good question, and here we would accuse the analogy that Paul uses of inadequacy if we reject both as true. Paul says in Ephesians 4:15, "But speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love." The whole body is spoken as doing the growing, yet it is growing up into the head: Jesus. Yet is not the head a member of the whole body?

I didn’t ask the question. I understand the nature of Paul’s analogy is to illustrate only a certain aspect of the church. The similarity between the church and a body has limitations which require the use of some logical discretion when expanding it to all aspects of a real body.

quote by cybershark5886:
Not to mention you have to realize that Paul in Corinthians when he says "the head cannot say to the feet..." if he is not refering to Jesus as the head it would be the only instance in the NT where the head of the body does not refer to Christ. It would have to be an exception, and for such an exception it would require quite an explanation.

Not really. There aren’t that many places where Christ is referred to as head of the body. Usually, the headship of Christ is more of a leadership title and not a reference to a physical body part at all.

quote by cybershark5886:
[quote5b1d] previous unred quote: “He has no need for the body, because he has all power and could do all things without one single part of the body; the church.’It pleases him to fit believers together like a body made up of different unique parts that work together to do his work, but he needs them like he needs a hole in the head.â€Â

We are the body of Christ, how can He not need the body to which He is joined? The "vine and the brances" have an inseperable relation. If Christ truely is in us and if Christ is God then when the Bible says, "If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself" (2 Timothy 2:13) this means that the elect body of Christ, who is united to Christ and God, thus cannot be denied, for "God cannot deny Himself" nor Himself in us if I may be so bold as to apply a principle.[/quote5b1d]

Show me a verse that says that Christ needs the church. Not a verse that says he loves the church or that he died for it, but that he needs it. The branches need the vine but they do not have an inseparable relationship. As I said before, the Bible even speaks of them being cut off and cast away. If we are faithless, he remains faithful, not to us but to his promises that those who die with him shall live with him and the promises made to Abraham that he would be a father to believers of many nations. The church is not a visible building or group of people, it is believers in a way of life that Jesus taught. Those who live according to those principles are his body, those who hold to the head as you can read in Colossians 2.

quote by cybershark5886:
Not as if Christ (and it may theologically rest on the fact that the Son and not the Father - directly - is the immediate head of the body, and it was the Son who became flesh) is dependant on us for power or righteousness or any of these things but that upon joining himself to us he cannot deny us. Christ works in his people, not apart from them.

What do you mean that it was the son who became flesh? If you’re going to get technical, it was the word of the Father that became flesh, not the son. The word became the son. God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. The believers are knit together in love. It is by walking in love that we become part of his body. You just don’t get it. It’s not what you believe, (i.e. the knowledge of the substitutionary death of Christ and who God is), that means you are a believer, it’s what you live that makes you a believer. Love is the glue that holds the body together. God is love. Love is the word that was made flesh.

quote by cybershark5886:
Unred said: “If you are going to insist that Jesus is the head in this illustration who needs the body to survive, or to do his work, you are being a cancer cell who grows off in another direction instead of understanding what it’s function really is.â€Â

Not to survive, it never specifically elaborated on the nature of the 'need'. Rather since it is in the negative "don't need", and saying that you can't say you don't need the other members, it can simly imply that the two cannot work apart and at the same time be part of the same body, for a body that does two different things in different sections of the body under two different laws of operation cannot actually be said to be a functioning body, nor even a unified one. Yet the very nature of the Church is unity in Christ.

The church is the entire group of believers who are united in love and embrace the message of ‘love one another’ that Jesus taught. The local assembly was the visible part of the body. I say ‘was’ because there is no longer a single unified local assembly that is held together by love for one another. There is still the invisible church that is united by their love for God and their love for all men, especially those who, like them, believe in the message of Christ. He remains faithful and will not deny this invisible body of believers, even if the local assemblies fall away in unbelief of his message of love, forgiveness, and mercy toward one another and faith in God and his blood.

quote by cybershark5886:
Tell me your thoughts.

If you want to continue to make Christ dependant on the body, go ahead. Ramble on about something that is not taught in scripture. I still don’t agree. He is connected to the body by love and the body is a body made up of those who love. The individuals who don’t continue to grow in love are like spots, blemishes, and dead cells that the body will heal or discard. If you walk in love, you will live within the body and the blood of Christ will cleanse you from all sin. If you become bitter and hateful, not holding to the head, who is love, you will eventually die and be cast away. That’s my thoughts.

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

Unred,

Thank you for replying, however I do believe you misunderstood many of my points. I will here try to explain.

You mean like leaven hid in three measures of flour? Ooops. Leaven always means something evil in parables, doesn’t it?

A most unnecessary tangent. You should have known to what I was refering about how the Church (the body) is nothing without Christ, and the Church is also the Temple in which God dwells.

On top of that how ironic you should use the exact phrase "leaven hid in three measures of flour" when that refers to one of the few verses in the Bible that use it in a good sense:
"Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened." (Matthew 13:33) . This speaks of the inexorable growth of the kingdom from small beginnings. However as I said a tangent. The unity of the Church by Christ is an undeniable doctrine, I do not see why you would want to slight the most basic of Christian truths.

However I shall move on to your more reasonable points...

Not really. There aren’t that many places where Christ is referred to as head of the body. Usually, the headship of Christ is more of a leadership title and not a reference to a physical body part at all.

I agree that often headship is used but it is not to say it is never an anatomical reference (all metaphor of course). What about Ephesians 4:15 for example? It uses the words head and body within only a few words of each other, and the head surely refers to Christ in that instance.

But before you think I'm hell-bent on interpreting the Corinthians passage as the head as refering to Christ, please read on....

Show me a verse that says that Christ needs the church. Not a verse that says he loves the church or that he died for it, but that he needs it.

I never said Christ needs the Church, and infact later in the post I pointed out that the nature of the 'need' in the Corinthians passage is unspecified and in the negative. However that is but semantics in comparison to my point of how Christ is a personal God and is involved and unified with his people and will not abandon them. Yes out of his infinite benevolence and compassion, but also because he has enacted an irreversable covenant, the glorious New Covenant in his blood, and all covenants require blood - a sacrifice. A great truth of that being that he became flesh and dwelt among us. I believe that Christ humbled himself to such a point as that he shall forever be our High Priest in virtue of him still being the "Son of Man" and able to relate to our sufferings (as Hebrews speaks about in detail). Him, who is not ashamed to call us 'brethren', having been in the flesh binds him all the more to his kin in the Church, and such a relationship cannot be divorced short of Christ taking back his sacrifice.

The branches need the vine but they do not have an inseparable relationship.

I in Christ and Christ in me is a blessed unity and Jesus promised never to forsake us. I am not looking at God as saying he needs us in order to be God, or as if he was weak without us, but that now that he has entered into Covenant with us and has had gracious compassion enough to stoop to our level to die for us, he has commited the utmost act of love by unifying his Divine Nature to his undeserving people. Christ truely emptied himself for us. What a loving sacrifice he gave, and at what a price!

That do you mean that it was the son who became flesh? If you’re going to get technical, it was the word of the Father that became flesh, not the son. The word became the son. God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. The believers are knit together in love.

Ah, you miss my point entirely, and I admit it was vague. Let me explain, my point was as I have already touched on a bit here, Christ (specifically Christ - because for some reason I'll have to ask God when I get to heaven there is a distinction between the Son and Father and the Son will even deliver up His kingdom to his Father) became flesh, our relatable High Priest (because he emptied himself and came in the flesh - which I think aids the terminology of a "body") and commited an irreversable act which so unifies Him to us that it is precisely the reason why the Lamb is Worthy for he held back nothing. He gave up everything and sacrified his own life that we might be unified to God, and a unity Christ will not and cannot because covenant go back on, nor would he desire to. Don't you see? I'm rejoicing because of our unity to Christ and that Christ will not go back on his promises, and has given us a binding covenant of which we are so undeserving - which is why he deserves all worship, and honor, and praise for all eternity for what he has done!

If you want to continue to make Christ dependant on the body, go ahead. Ramble on about something that is not taught in scripture. I still don’t agree. He is connected to the body by love and the body is a body made up of those who love.

I no longer am pushing an interpretaion on the Corinthians passage, because admittedly it is disputable, and I - unlike some - will not build a doctrine on a flimsy premise based on one verse. So in prudent cautiousness I will abandon any claim to a definate interpretaion of that Corinthians verse. However I now move on to use the idea brought up in the process and as a result of my original idea from that verse to take the opportunity to look at Christ's unity to us in a way I had never previously even thought to think of. I never fully understood how much Christ gave up for us or how much he emptied himself until I started to think of that idea in the first place. He really did give everything didn't he? I can't imagine what Christ's passion must have been like...

I'm not the bad guy here and I'm not here to argue, instead I'm trying to appreciate the beauty of Christ, who He is, and what He has done. I merely wish to discuss it so that I can work out my ideas so I can lay a more firm foundation on which I may appreciate Christ's unity to his Church, his Bride, and the evidence of His love for us - which cannot be measured. Will you oblige me in a sincere quest to establish such a foundation? I do not wish sarcasm or quarrels, only intimations of what astounding extents God went to save us and reconcile us to himself. And if any criticism, please give constructive criticism. I hope you now see where I am coming from.

God Bless. Sincerely,

~Josh

 

[unred typo]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

quote by cybershark5886 on Sat Oct 27, 2007:
A most unnecessary tangent. You should have known to what I was refering about how the Church (the body) is nothing without Christ, and the Church is also the Temple in which God dwells.

On top of that how ironic you should use the exact phrase "leaven hid in three measures of flour" when that refers to one of the few verses in the Bible that use it in a good sense:
"Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened." (Matthew 13:33) . This speaks of the inexorable growth of the kingdom from small beginnings. However as I said a tangent. The unity of the Church by Christ is an undeniable doctrine, I do not see why you would want to slight the most basic of Christian truths.

I used that phrase on purpose to illustrate how unwise it is to transfer the meanings of the elements of one parable onto another. It also completely ties in with what you want to discuss. The leaven here seems to me to be the words of Christ. The parable shows how the kingdom of God is the rule of Christ over the individual person, submitted to his headship. It goes beyond the church to effect those outside the church and lifts the entire community to believe. The church is not a local assembly that meets in a building, but it is any and all believers united under the headship of Christ, bound together by love and dedicated to good works and faith in his promises.

quote by cybershark5886:
I agree that often headship is used but it is not to say it is never an anatomical reference (all metaphor of course). What about Ephesians 4:15 for example? It uses the words head and body within only a few words of each other, and the head surely refers to Christ in that instance.

But before you think I'm hell-bent on interpreting the Corinthians passage as the head as refering to Christ, please read on.…

I never said it was never used as an anatomical metaphor, either. I agree here the head is Christ and as head of the body here, the metaphor refers to the function of the head to direct and lead, to be the eyes and ears that watch over the care and feeding of the body. I am not saying that the body/head analogy is not a useful simile. It is. As you say, let’s discuss that and not dwell on the unsubstantiated inferences of Christ not being able to say he doesn’t need the body. I think you agree that he doesn’t. He does love and nourish it and gave his life for it. We agree on that. We’re happy. :-D

quote by cybershark5886:
He gave up everything and sacrified his own life that we might be unified to God, and a unity Christ will not and cannot because covenant go back on, nor would he desire to. Don't you see? I'm rejoicing because of our unity to Christ and that Christ will not go back on his promises, and has given us a binding covenant of which we are so undeserving - which is why he deserves all worship, and honor, and praise for all eternity for what he has done!

His covenant is conditional. He won’t go back on his promise as long as we fulfill our part in the covenant as well. Here are just two of the dozens of examples:

2 Corinthians 6:16,17-7:1
16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for you are the temple of the living God; as God has said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17Wherefore come out from among them, and be you separate, says the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18And will be a Father unto you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.
1Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Galatians 6:7-8
7Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.
8For he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

The fact that these precious promises are conditional in no way diminishes the worship, honor, and praise that he deserves. He gave his life that we might live with him when there was no way we could have been reconciled other than his perfect substitute for our sin.

quote by cybershark5886:
I'm not the bad guy here and I'm not here to argue, instead I'm trying to appreciate the beauty of Christ, who He is, and what He has done. I merely wish to discuss it so that I can work out my ideas so I can lay a more firm foundation on which I may appreciate Christ's unity to his Church, his Bride, and the evidence of His love for us - which cannot be measured. Will you oblige me in a sincere quest to establish such a foundation? I do not wish sarcasm or quarrels, only intimations of what astounding extents God went to save us and reconcile us to himself. And if any criticism, please give constructive criticism. I hope you now see where I am coming from.
God Bless. Sincerely,
~Josh

I don’t consider you the bad guy, Josh. It was just a bad idea. We all get them and there aren’t many that are honest, forthright and humble enough to admit when he changes his mind about something he has posted. I’m trying to be constructive in my criticism. Although I lack your tact, I don’t think I have said anything that painted you as an evil person trying to deceive the flock, have I? I may have come down hard on that particular aspect of your post but you asked for an honest opinion of the scriptural integrity of it. I actually felt you suspected it was not kosher when you asked for confirmation.