Calvary Road Baptist Church
“THE BODY OF CHRIST:
Metaphor Not Myth” Part 1
This is the first of eight services in which I will do something I have never done before in my ministry: explain the contents of a well-written book titled “THE BODY OF CHRIST: Metaphor Not Myth,” written by a Baptist pastor named Charles L. Hunt. My purpose in explaining the book to you is based upon two convictions. First, I am convinced this book is the best treatment of a matter of significance to a correct understanding of the Biblical doctrine of the Church that I have ever read, the body of Christ metaphor. Also, I am persuaded that the incorrect understanding of the body of Christ metaphor is so widespread and pervasive that when the correct body of Christ metaphor is presented to someone, they may, as likely as not, experience some form of cognitive dissonance.
Allow me to explain. Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort felt when two or more modes of thought contradict each other. The clashing cognitions may include ideas, beliefs, or the knowledge that one has behaved in a certain way. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people are opposed to inconsistencies within their minds. It explains why people sometimes try to adjust their thinking when their thoughts, words, or behaviors seem to clash.
When someone learns new information that challenges a deeply held or comfortable belief, for example, or acts in a way that seems to undercut a favorable self-image, that person may feel motivated to resolve somehow the negative feeling that results—to restore cognitive consonance. Though a person may not always resolve cognitive dissonance, the response to it may range from ignoring the source of it to changing one’s beliefs or behavior to eliminate the conflict. Cognitive dissonance frequently results when the familiar is preferred to the true. I have found that to be the case with the body of Christ metaphor, with people (and many pastors) feeling much more comfortable with the familiar than the true.
Cognitive dissonance is such a problem with the body of Christ metaphor that I can think of no better way to prepare you to help others with it than this approach, beginning tonight. We will deal with one chapter of the book at a time, giving you ample opportunity to not only satisfy yourself that the material presented to you is accurate but also to help you reflect on how to help others who have been taught the prevailing but incorrect understanding of the body of Christ metaphor in the New Testament.
Please turn to the Introduction on page 7 of your copy of the book, where we begin reading.
INTRODUCTION
“And further, by these, my son, be
admonished: of making many books there is no end;
and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”
(Eccl. 12:12)
These words of Solomon require a worthy response before another work is added to the endless list of books expecting us to weary ourselves in studying yet another volume. This work is such a response. Each generation sees various doctrines blossom that years previously were planted in seed form. Only after they have reached full maturity do they either, like wheat or tares, gracefully bow in fruitful honor to Jesus Christ or arrogantly stand in barrenness dishonoring the field of truth in which they appear. It is the taunting of one such tare that moves this author to write.
The Bible is filled with similes, metaphors, parables, and allegories, and it is easy to incorrectly associate these literary devices as they are uniquely developed within a particular context with a teaching foreign to their context and therefore lose the elucidation of the truth the figure of speech was intended to give. Such is the present case with the biblical metaphor of the Body of Christ. Many scholars not only misunderstand the metaphor but draw conclusions from it that lead to serious error and confusion. For example, the most predominant view is that the metaphor teaches the believer’s organic and vital union to Jesus Christ. Such a union is a biblical teaching and is demonstrated in Jesus’ metaphor of the vine and branches; however, the Pauline metaphor of Christ as the head of the body does not teach this truth. The purpose of this work is to explain the true nature and meaning of the metaphor of Jesus Christ as head of His body, the church.
It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. The following sketch contrasts the commonly accepted view of Christ as head of his body with the one put forth in this volume. As you look at these two diagrams and as you read through this book, ask yourself, “ is Jesus Christ the head of His body?”
Looking at page 8, notice Figure 1 and Figure 2. Figure 1 is the imagery that represents the body of Christ metaphor as it is understood by the overwhelming majority of people when they read the Bible. It is the standard Protestant view. The problem is that Figure 1 is incorrect and does not reflect what the Bible teaches about the body of Christ metaphor. Figure 2 is the accurate representation of the Biblical body of Christ metaphor, as you will come to see.
Chapter 1 begins on page 9. Please turn there and read through it with me. Feel free to raise your hand at any point to ask for clarification or explanation. As I read, I will pause from time to time to make remarks as we familiarize ourselves with the extremely popular but incorrect view of the head-body metaphor.
Chapter One
THE POPULAR BUT INCORRECT VIEW OF
THE HEAD-BODY METAPHOR
Introduction
The Bible, of course, is not a creation of man. It is a revelation from God, and its depths and perfection are unsearchable. When something manmade is closely examined, its flaws appear proportionate to the extent of the examination, but the Word of God possesses wisdom, knowledge, and truth which excel under the greatest scrutiny. Manmade doctrines can not stand the acid test of the truth of Scripture. Such is the case when we Scripturally examine the popular but mistaken interpretation of the metaphor of Jesus Christ as head of the body in a vital organic union with the body. This view holds that Christ is the head and the church is the trunk in which together they form one composite body in a living and life sustaining union. It is, therefore, often concluded that the Pauline metaphor of Christ as head of the church expresses a salvational relationship. However, such a conclusion is positively untenable in light of the Scriptures.
Examples
The following quotes are indicative of the general body of Christian writers on the subject who have misunderstood the metaphor. This is the overwhelmingly dominant Protestant position. One should be reminded that the Biblical doctrine of the believer’s vital union to Jesus Christ is not being challenged for it is a Biblical doctrine. Nor are we calling into question the general wisdom or the integrity of those who hold this position. We wish simply to point out that they have incorrectly associated the Christian’s union to Christ with a biblical metaphor that was never intended to picture that union. The reason for their oversight will be dealt with later in this book.
T. Croskery, a 19th-century Irish theologian.
The following quote from Croskery demonstrates a weakness in logic in that he consciously or unconsciously changes the analogy of the metaphor:
As the body is not complete without the head, so the head is not complete without the body. The Lord Jesus Christ is not complete without his church. How can this be? He himself says, ‘My strength is made perfect in weakness,’ but is his power not always perfect? It is declared to be perfect in our weakness. So the church serves as an empty vessel, into which the Saviour pours his mediatorial fullness.
What inconsistency is conspicuous in this quote? It is the author’s change of metaphors from the church being the trunk of Christ’s body to being that of an “empty vessel.” If the metaphor was meant to teach an organic union, why does Croskery change the metaphor midstream from a “trunk of a body” to an “empty vessel” which Christ fills with his mediatorial fullness? Why not just follow the body metaphor to its logical conclusion? The answer is because the conclusion would be absurd. The conclusion that Croskery draws from his - “empty vessel” metaphor that Jesus Christ as the body’s head is made perfect in some unknown way through the weakness of the body ignores the reality that had he followed the body metaphor to its logical conclusion you would have the Head being equally dependent upon the life of the body for its life. The reality of this metaphor, if viewed as those who see in it an organic union with Christ, is that the body is filled with the life sustaining blood and organs which are equally and absolutely necessary to the life of the head. In other words, there is a codependency in which the head and body equally sustain each other. Is there a codependency between the Second Person of the Godhead and His Church? Of course, not! Jesus has no needs (He is not dependent!) and His Church has only needs.
Physiology in Antiquity
What is the biblical teaching concerning the nature of the human body and that which sustains its life? What was the understanding of those of the Apostle Paul’s day concerning the physiology of the human body? Genesis 9:4-6 says: “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” This understanding of the significance of blood to the life of the body is also seen in Leviticus 17:11-14, “For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.” This concept of the significance of the blood to the body had not changed during the time of Christ and the Apostles. This is the reason the meeting of the apostles and elders of the church of Jerusalem concluded with James, our Lord’s brother and pastor of the Jerusalem Church, stating in Acts 15:20, “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Would someone of Paul’s day or even Paul himself think in terms of the head sustaining the life of the body? Would they not think of the blood of the body sustaining the life of the head?
W. F. Adeney, an English minister, theologian, and scholar who lived from 1849-1920.
This next quote from Adeney contains a similar inconsistency concerning the body of Christ metaphor as that of Croskery above:
The essential unity consists in the subordination of all the parts to the one head. Severance from Christ is death to the Church. A Christian Church is a headless trunk. We may retain the doctrine and ethic of the New Testament, but nevertheless, amputation of the Head means death. Even a partial severance of connection involves paralysis—loss of spiritual power and loss of spiritual feeling.
Indeed, amputation of the Head does mean death—death for the head as well as the body! One might react that you can not press metaphors too far. This is true. You are not to press metaphors, similes, and parables beyond the obvious. But is the conclusion that the head would die as well as the body if the body were severed from the head beyond the obvious? Is death to the head a minor detail that should just be overlooked for the greater cause of forcing this metaphor to teach the truth of a vital union with Jesus Christ? We think not.
The Vine-Branch Metaphor of John 15
In John 15 the beautiful metaphor of Christ as the vine and professing believers as the branches is developed. The branches that have experienced the washing of regeneration and are clean will bear fruit and manifest that they are in a vital union with Jesus Christ. The branches which bear no fruit manifest their only union with Jesus Christ was that of one who possesses only a lifeless profession of Christ. Take the branches from the vine and there is still life in the vine, but take the body from the head and the head dies. This is why the metaphor of the church as the body of Christ cannot possibly teach an organic oneness with Christ in salvation.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a 20th-century Welsh minister in London.
The following quote of Lloyd-Jones, an excellent author, makes an exception to his usual genius:
There is not a part of the body which is not controlled by nerves and the nervous system. The life in every muscle and in every part is conveyed to it by nervous energy and power. And all the nerves ultimately can be traced back to the brain, which is in the head. It is the centre and the source which controls all the nervous energy of the whole body and of every separate part and particle of the system. When the Apostle says that Christ is the Head of the Church he means that He is the Head of the Church in that sense. We have no life apart from Him; all the energy and power come from Him.
This analogy makes reasonable sense to us in the twenty-first century, but they of the first century could never have made such an analogy. If we believe in the grammatical-historical method of exegesis, we know that the head-body metaphor was something they could fully understand in their day. So, how does one justify giving an interpretation like this to a verse which could not be properly understood until hundreds of years later when our knowledge of human physiology would, pardon the pun, make the connection? At any rate, Lloyd-Jones fails to see that such an interpretation as he gives breaks down in that the head can not sustain itself apart from the body.
Another Example From Lloyd-Jones
Most authors who have a misconception of the head-body metaphor continue to press their incorrect understanding of the metaphor even where their inconsistency should easily be seen. Again, contrary to his usual carefulness, Lloyd-Jones fails to see the break down of his interpretation of the metaphor:
The body is one, and yet it consists of a number of individual members or parts. As Paul says in I Corinthians: ‘Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular’ (12:27). In the human body, as he points out, the hand has one function and the foot has another; the nose and eyes and the ears and the various parts of the body all have their individual parts to play … But what we have chiefly to remember is that, as members of the mystical body of Christ, and having our individual parts to play, the energy and the power we exercise all comes from Him. He Himself made this quite clear when He said: “Apart from me ye can do nothing.”
What we find curiously absent in his discussion of 1 Corinthians 12 is any consideration of verse 21 which reads:
“And the eye cannot say unto the hand,
I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the
feet, I have no need of you.”
Note that the metaphorical body which Paul presents here has a head! Its head is treated no differently than the feet. Every member of this body is necessary including the head. In verse 27 they are told:
“Now ye are the body of Christ
and members in particular.”
The church at Corinth was “the” or as the Greek reads “a” body of Christ. Clearly, the church at Corinth is depicted as a body complete with a head. Only Figure 2 on page 8 is compatible with First Corinthians 12.21.
The Mixing of Metaphors
Jesus’ statement in the above quote by Lloyd-Jones that “Apart from me ye can do nothing,” has its context in the vine-branch metaphor of John 15 and within that context it makes perfect sense. However, when mixed and placed within the context of an organic head-body metaphor, represented by Figure 1 on page 8, it makes no sense at all because apart from the body the head has as much sustaining power as the body—none! A vine, on the other hand, can have a branch severed and still maintain full vitality even growing more branches. The process of pruning can even strengthen the vine.
Matthew Poole, a 17th century English theologian and commentator.
The renowned Matthew Poole, commenting on Ephesians 1.22, falls prey to the same illogical thinking as the others and gives the word “head” two meanings:
Christ is the “mystical head … as a king is to his subjects, to rule them externally by his laws” and “as a natural head ... to the body which it governs by way of influence, conveying spirits to it, and so causing and maintaining sense and motion in it ... (italics mine).
Two problems are evident here. One is that he makes the same mistake as the others in making Jesus Christ a head organically linked to the torso or trunk which is viewed as the church. The other is that he then is forced to change the meaning that is given to the term head within this context. Jesus Christ is the head over all things, but all things do not constitute His body. The word “head” in Ephesians 1:22 appears just like it does in 1 Corinthians 11:3, “But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Is every man metaphorically the body of Christ? Is every woman an acelphalous which is to say headless trunk over which man is the organic head? Is Jesus Christ to be pictured as a headless being with God being His head? The context of Ephesians chapter one is the sovereignty, power, and exaltation of Jesus Christ over all. A complete resurrected God-man Jesus Christ reigns over all things and in the interest of His assembly—it is a complete body over which He presides as Lord.
More Metaphor Mixing
If one interprets the head-body metaphor in Ephesians 1:22-23 as an organic union as represented by Figure 1 on page 8, there is a mixing of metaphors. Ephesians 1:22-23 states:
“And hath put all things under his feet,
and gave him to be the head over all things
to the church, which is his body, the fullness
of him that filleth all in all.”
Here we have a strange picture indeed if Christ metaphorically is the head of the body for all things are placed under His feet. He is one and at the same time a head which has feet, which only Figure 2 represents. Some will perhaps react as to the reason for the phrase “his body” if it is not referring to his mystical body. The Greek reads, to soma autou. The autou (his) of to soma autou (his body) is definitely a possessive genitive. All scholars are in agreement here. But the context is clear that the “his” is not reflexive in reference to his physical or some imagined mystical body, meaning only Figure 2 makes sense, not Figure 1. The body which He has purchased with His blood and organized into a living organism in the form of a local assembly is His. When this passage is exegeted properly a glorious truth emerges. Just as the fullness of the spiritual gifts, with all their diversity, dwelled in Jesus Christ in the unity of his being, so they exist in their fullness and unity in each assembly (metaphorically a body) over which He reigns sovereignly and to which he chooses to fill and nourish as His body just as a man chooses to nourish his wife.
John Thornbury, an American Baptist pastor and author (1935-2024)
The following quote from Thornbury continues with the same weaknesses as the previously quoted authors:
Christ is not only the Head of authority over His people, but He is also the source of their spiritual life and energy. Just as the members of a physical body derive life and power from the head to which they are vitally connected, so all who are joined to Christ by faith derive their spiritual life and strength from Him ... Thus, according to this position, Christ is not only the governmental Head but the organic Head as well. (Highlight mine.)
This quote adds nothing new but again repeats the error of mixing metaphors with Christ being an organic head of the body Figure 1 and yet at the same time the governmental Head Figure 2. This is like trying to draw two lessons from a parable that has only one — it cannot be done. The head-body metaphor is either teaching that Jesus is the organic head over the church Figure 1 or the governmental head Figure 2 but not both! Thornbury further states:
If the above meaning can be ascribed to the figure of head and body-that it describes a saving or spiritual union of Christ and the church-the strict local position [i.e. the local and visible concept of the church as held by Landmark Baptists] is rendered untenable...
This is a conclusion that perhaps all of the above writers in this chapter would draw. John Thornbury believes that the true Baptist view of the church is that of a universal, invisible body.
But for those who hold a strict local view, as the current writer does with some modifications, Thornbury’s conclusion certainly reinforces the necessity of correctly interpreting this metaphor. One’s Ecclesiology (Doctrine of the Church) stands or falls on a correct understanding of the head-body Metaphor.
Summary
Many more examples could be cited of those who have misconstrued the Pauline headbody metaphor to consist of an organic union in which Christ as the head is connected to the body in a vital or living union Figure 1. We will see in the following chapter that such an interpretation is utterly impossible.
Let us be clear about a metaphor, a figure of speech in which one thing is likened to another.[1] You and I use metaphors in everyday conversation. Also, metaphors and other figures of speech are used throughout the Bible.
Metaphors can be handy to convey truth, so long as they are accurately understood. How beneficial are Christ’s metaphors in John 10.7 and 9, “I am the door,” and John 15.1, “I am the true vine.” In like manner, the body of Christ can be beneficial to understanding the Church of Christ so long as it is adequately understood.
This chapter of Hunt’s book is devoted to showing that the metaphor represented by Figure 1 on page 9 is not only incorrect but also harmful. Yet it represents the view held by so many, who are not prepared to receive any indication that the view they are so invested in might be unscriptural.
Lord willing, next week, we will examine Chapter 2, THE CORRECT VIEW.
__________
[1] Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996), page 1132.
Question? Comment?
Would you like to contact Dr. Waldrip about this sermon? Fill out the form below to send him an email. Thank you.