The Terminology “One Body”
The Apostle Paul uses the two words “one body” eleven times in his epistles. Theologians, teachers, and others have perverted the meaning of the expression, “one body,” through the years, reading into it something not there. They over complicate it to see one of their presuppositions and twist it like a gumby doll.
The word “one” does not always mean “numeric one.” Very often, especially in the New Testament and in Paul’s writings, it means “unified one.” Let me give you an example of numeric one, such as a single or singular person, place, or thing, and then a unified one. One can express unity. The people were one, means they were completely together. I am not a Phillies fan, but if I said the Philadelphia Phillies were one team, I am not saying that there is a single Phillies ball club. I’m saying that the team has unity. That’s how Paul uses the term. It’s obvious he uses it that way.
Usage of “One”
In the English, the word “one” is used 1,967 times in the Bible. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says:
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
That is a usage of numeric one. He is saying, not a single jot or tittle will pass from the law. That incidentally is the first usage of “one” in the entire New Testament. Luke writes in Acts 19:34:
But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
This does not mean that this crowd of people had a single voice. They had several voices, but unified voices, so one voice. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 15:6:
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
To the church at Rome to whom Paul wrote, he says, “ye,” referring to its plural members, excluding himself. He says that these many, plural people have “one mind” and “one mouth.” Do you think that only one, single mind and one, single mouth existed in Rome? No. Of course not. Yet, you don’t have people saying that there is a universal, invisible mystical mind or a universal, invisible mystical mouth. Maybe they do in a mind science cult, but this does not exist in the actual, real world.
Usage of “One Body”
Colossians 3:15
Now let’s consider the terminology “one body,” which expresses the unity of each church in its context. I want us to consider Colossians 3:15 first, because it eliminates the concept that “one body” is one universal, invisible body. Paul writes:
And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.
The Apostle Paul does use the pronoun “we” sometimes and includes himself, but one should not assume that he is saying that he is in the same one body as his audience. When he uses “ye” here, he excludes himself. He says, “your hearts,” “ye are called,” and “be ye thankful.” He could have phrased all this with “we” in it, but he didn’t. Instead, he says, “ye are called in one body.” If this was singular “one body,” referring to a big universal church to which all believers were members, he should not exclude himself, and yet he does. Why? He is addressing the church at Colossae. The “one body” was their church.
The context of this statement in Colossians 3:15 goes back a long ways to say that the church there is neither Greek nor Jew, bond nor free, etc. In other words, they are now no longer separate tribes, but all one there. Paul says, “be merciful, kind, longsuffering, etc. (v. 12), forbear, forgive, don’t quarrel (v. 13), put on charity, which is a bond (v. 14), so that peace rules in your hearts (v. 15). All these factors lead to unity — in other words, “one body.” Paul instructs them in having a unified body, a church with unity, which God and he both want.
1 Corinthians 12:12
The context of 1 Corinthians 12 is that the church at Corinth has many members and, therefore, many varied offices and gifts. The one Holy Spirit (which is numeric one with an allusion to unity, the one Holy Spirit causes oneness) actually creates this diversity in the church by dividing up or assigning varied spiritual gifts to the members. With this kind of variation, how is there harmony, oneness? Well, first there is one Spirit. He can bring oneness, since He isn’t going to contradict Himself.
As an analogy, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:12:
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
“The body is one.” Here he speaks of the actual human body in a generic sense. “The body” is the human body. Question: Is the singular “the body” here particular or generic or is it an invented usage of the singular, “mystical”? It isn’t particular, because Paul is not speaking of a a particular person’s body. It is generic because every body has members or body parts. Each body on earth has always been one, a defining or true aspect of what it means to be a body. It isn’t a body any more when a finger is over here, an ear is in another zip code, and each toe finds itself in a different county.
The Human Body as a Metaphor
I want to emphasize again. Please pay attention here. “The body” is the human body. Human body. Think anatomy and physiology. The “ankle bone is connected to the leg bone, the leg bone is connected to the knee bone.” The skeleton does not do the skeleton dance if the ankle bone is not in fact connected to the leg bone. All those joints must connect for the body to work in unity. (Take a deep breath.)
What Paul writes actually contradicts the idea of a universal body. Part of a body being a body is proximity. It is all together in one location. “The body” is not a particular human body, but speaks of any and every human body in a generic fashion. Not only is the human body one, but the human body has many members or body parts. “Members” means “body parts.” Paul uses the human body to illustrate the unity and diversity of a church. Even though the body has many members, it is still one, that is, it is still unified. Every member works together. They must because it is one body. This is not teaching a universal church.
Not Singular One, But Unified One
For being such a prominent doctrine among evangelicals, Paul doesn’t ever mention a universal church. If it existed, he could have easily clarified it. What universal church proponents do is take these “one body” passages and the like, which are unity passages, and they read into them a universal church. This messes up the interpretation or meaning of the entire passage by forcing this non-existent concept into the passage. People will very often do almost whatever it takes to get their doctrine into the Bible, that isn’t there on its own.
When Paul implies, “Christ is one body,” there is a sense of “numeric one,” but it still communicating “unified one” as the primary usage here. Body parts still unify, still operate as one, function together, because of the oneness, the unity of the body. The church at Corinth divided over its gifts. Get this. The church at Corinth divided over its gifts. It’s like a body dividing over its various body parts. That doesn’t happen with a body even though it has various body parts. It still works together. That is what Paul is saying!!
Paul is saying nothing about a universal, mystical body of believers. He is talking about the unity of the church at Corinth and in a generic fashion, the unity of every church. Even though each church has many members, it is one body. That is the reality of a body. Each body is one.
People Will Still Argue
I really do assume that people will still argue over this, because their universal body concept is so precious to them for whatever reason. They want to keep that Platonic “all believers” concept intact. It has no practical ramification at all and doesn’t fit what Paul is teaching, but they still call it the prime meaning of these unity texts. While there is no biblical unity (like that of a human body) between all professing believers, they still begrudgingly use it. Meanwhile, they ruin what’s in the text itself to help out a church. Churches lose an important unity text to preserve a false doctrine.
Why do people need to keep this false concept of a universal body? I believe there are a lot of reasons. It isn’t grammar or syntax or the plain meaning of the text. No, it is something outside of the Bible. The chief reason, I believe, and this is an opinion, but with a large sample size, is that people can live freely without constraint to an actual church. They become a free-floating entity beholden to no one and without authority. It is a good vehicle to take for rebellion. It means not submitting to anything but a mystical Christ, who they shape into the Jesus they want Him to be.
I’m going to stop here, because I believe you get the message. This is what each of Paul’s “one body” texts are about. They are about the unity of individual churches. They all happen the same way, just like the unity of a human body in the body metaphor that Paul uses.
Kent wrote-
“The chief reason, I believe, and this is an opinion, but with a large sample size, is that people can live freely without constraint to an actual church.”
Do you actually believe that ignorant statement? Everyone I know that believes the bible understands the body of Christ is more than a local assembly, but all are part of a local assembly and some also elders within that assembly. There are others, who believe as you do concerning local only authority, but do not deny the teachings as the verses shown of a universal church to which all believers in Christ are part of.
The way you handle the bible is as good as JWs, 7th day adventist and others like them. You only “nitpick” verses to explain one side while ignoring those that are against your position.
You are correct that the “ye” are those that do not include the author (Paull) and others with him. Yet, you eliminate those verses of the “one body” that do include the universal church.
For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
(Romans 12:4-5)
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
(1 Corinthians 10:16-17)
Who constitutes the ‘we’ described as being ‘one body in Christ’? A straightforward reading of the biblical text, approached without theological bias or interpretive agenda, makes the answer clear to those committed to a faithful, contextual understanding of biblical text.
Kent wrote:
“What Paul writes actually contradicts the idea of a universal body. Part of a body being a body is proximity. It is all together in one location.’
That is nothing less than “private interpretation”!
“For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
(1 Corinthians 12:12-13)
You spent all that time arguing about the “ye”, but when you see the “we” you try to deflect that with some proximity argument? That is a weak and nonsensical argument.
And once again, you are wrong here-
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
(Ephesians 2:16-18)
It says “we BOTH” have access to that one Spirit, for “we” are unto God as “one body” in Jesus Christ by the cross.
Really, brother, it seems you’re more interested in repeating ideological and theological talking points that align with your group, rather than genuinely seeking biblical truth.
Tom
Hi everyone,
I thought about deleting Tom’s comment and I know many, if not most, of you would support my deleting all his comments, but I decided to answer (one more time) this kind of comment from him, but this is it. He had his shot. I’ll answer it, and that will be it on this. If I write something on this again, I’m not going to go over it again with Tom, especially the way that he writes it, calling me “ignorant,” and other lies. He is a liar.
I will answer where I think I need to. Tom believes in a universal church, a contradiction in terms. He never shows it from scripture. He says I handle the Bible like a JW and a 7th Day Adventist. He does not show examples of that, which would be important if you’re going to say something so egregious.
It’s true that for the sake of brevity, I didn’t go back over the “we” passages on “one body,” but I referenced it in the post, which is again where Tom is a liar, saying that I avoided these because they contradict my position. I’ve written many, many times on the “we” verses. The “ye” verses are more important, because if the body is universal, “ye” contradicts that. “We” doesn’t contradict a local position. Paul was a member of one body too, so he could write what he wrote. Tom should reread this last paragraph.
Notice that Tom does nothing with the “ye” passages. He just acknowledges they exist. He has no answer. Case closed.
Romans 12:4-5. I dealt with this. Paul’s church was one body too. The church at Rome was one body. The point is oneness or unity, not numerical one. Tom never addresses this, which was the point of the post. “One body” is not numeric one, but unified one. That’s also the point of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. Communion of the body is seen in one bread and one cup. They show unity in the body. If “the body” is universal, when does that ever take the Lord’s Supper? It never does, because it is never in one place to do it. There is no communion between all believers at the Lord’s Table. The communion of which Paul speaks is local only. It doesn’t mean churches can’t fellowship with other churches, but that’s not what Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 10.
Tom calls something I wrote, “private interpretation.” Big talk. He shows nothing though. He makes these kinds of statements and then gives no evidence for them. They are mere ad hominem attacks, which work with certain people, perhaps that already agree with his position, but they don’t reveal anything.
Tom cuts and pastes 1 Corinthians 12:12-13. He didn’t answer the point I made in my post. “The body is one,” is the human body. Which body? It is a generic use of the singular noun. Every body is one. All human bodies are the same on this. Each body is one. A human body can have many members, body parts, and yet still be one. Then he says, “So is Christ.” Like the human body is one, so Christ’s body is one. This is not saying there is one on planet earth. It is unified one.
He doesn’t say anything about what “baptized” or “drink” are. This is water baptism and the Lord’s Table, the two ordinances of the church. Someone unifies with a church with baptism (see Acts 2:41). Someone unifies with a church through the Lord’s Table. Bond or free, Jew or Gentiles, they are all one in the body. Paul defines the body later in the chapter, when he writes, “Ye are the body of Christ,” in verse 27. That is the only place in that text (or in the New Testament) that defines the body. “The body” (not “a body”). He says, “Ye (excluding himself) are ‘the body’.” He doesn’t say “‘we’ are ‘the body’.” “The body” is local. In this instance, it is the church at Corinth.
Tom says I’m deflecting. That is another lie. I explained in my post that “we” doesn’t change anything. Paul was in one body. The members of the church at Corinth were in another one.
Ephesians 2:16-18 is again about unity in the church, this time in Ephesus. Ephesians 2:13-20 show local only meaning. In v. 10, Paul says that “we” are Christ’s workmanship, created in Him, including himself with the same conversion as the church at Ephesus. But in v. 11, he switches to “ye,” giving a spiritual account of the church at Ephesus, talking about them, excluding himself, because he’s talking about that church in that city. Paul wasn’t a Gentile or “uncircumcision in the flesh” (v. 11). Then notice how Paul goes back to the first person plural, speaking about salvation again, in vv. 14-18. He switches back to “ye” again, obviously speaking to the church at Ephesus again in v. 19, telling the story of its membership.
Between verses 18 and 20, Paul uses soteriological terminology to tell the tale of what occurred in the conversion of the church at Ephesus, putting a special emphasis on how that God had saved them as Gentiles, and included them in the kingdom of God and the family of God, again soteriological terms. The saints at Ephesus were now “fellowcitizens with the saints” (kingdom of God) and “of the household of God” (family of God).
Notice how in verse 22, Paul says “ye,” excluding himself. If the temple of God and the habitation of God were a universal church, then Paul would be saying that he was an unconverted non-member of the universal church. He says “ye,” because each local church is a temple of God and an habitation of God. If Paul were talking about all believers everywhere or even any believers anywhere, he would say “we,” just like he had earlier in the chapter. Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 says to the church at Corinth, “ye are the temple of God,” again each church His temple.
The point again of “one body” is not numerical one, but unified one. The reconciliation of these various factions in Ephesus brought one body.
Tom, you are big talker from a distance, behind your keyboard, insulting and name-calling. It’s really the best you’ve got with the bravado. You say it is to align with my group. There is no group of which I’m a part with which to align except for the church, the body. I’m aligning with biblical and historical teaching. I’m also fitting in with grammar and syntax, unlike you.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Unless I am forgetting something, Tom is an open theist. When one can support such idolatry as denying that God perfectly foreknows the future, without repentance, denying that the church is local-only and not being willing to change is not surprising, sadly.
I have never met Tom personally, of course. I hope his personal spiritual condition is one of a true believer rather than an unconverted person, but idolators will not inherit the kingdom of God.
He is an open theist and I’m done debating that with him too. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt some. He doesn’t believe in Calvinism so he pendulum swings too far is my benefit of the doubt. He’s trying to deal with everything predetermination not being true, and since knowledge (to him) seems like requires predetermination, he tries to accommodate free will with omniscience. It’s not the right way to do theology, but I get it.
Tom said:
“Do you actually believe that ignorant statement? […]
The way you handle the bible is as good as JWs, 7th day adventist and others like them.”
I think “Tom”, whoever he is, showed a lack of good judgment in making those statements.
I almost privately wrote to you once, Kent, to suggest “Tom” no longer be given an audience on your blog. But once in a while he does say something that seems reasonable or makes me think, so I backed off. However, as with the banning of George Calvas a long time ago, I think the blog would be none the worse without “Tom’s” comments.
Thanks E. T., Noted and understood.
One thing that I would want anyone reading to know. I’m not personally offended by Tom’s statements. I’m saying that insults, name-calling, and the like are not arguments or answers. I don’t feel sensitive about what he said personally. I don’t at all. It’s that they don’t qualify as proving or establishing anything.
For what it is worth, I’m in agreement with ET. When George posted here, it was a constant barrage of 5-10 paragraph post to prop up some Ruckman lite position (proven true be saying Holy King James Bible 20 times a post). Tom’s post carry the same flavor, in my opinion.
I well remember a very important discussion being completely sidelined by George back in the day. The topic went off the rails on a matter I was wanting answers on. It was frustrating.
Disagreement & other views are certainly fine. This is how most people learn. I’ve yet to see the disciples of Pete Ruckman to be able to learn.
Jim,
Again, noted and understood. Thanks.
Kent, I know you do not need confirmation of your decision, but I want to agree with your decision and the comments of E. T. & Jim. I found Tom’s comments never well argued, and after awhile just did not bother to read them.
Thanks Robert!