The Body of Christ Metaphor: 1 Corinthians 12
As I explained in the “Introduction” of this series, I am stepping through the passages in the New Testament in which the authors (primarily Paul – perhaps only Paul) use the term “body” in a metaphorical sense. As I read through these passages, I’m going to be asking these kinds of questions: What is Paul comparing to a “body”? What comparison is he making? At what point does it seem the comparison ends? How is this usage similar to or different from other usages?
Now, the term “body” is found often in Scripture. It usually refers to an actual body… that is, a person physical body. But, there are a few times when the term “body” does not refer to a person’s physical body, but is used in a metaphorical sense. I’ve already discussed the usages of “body” in Romans 12:4-5 and 1 Corinthians 10-11, and in this post I’ll look at the uses of the term body in 1 Corinthians 12.
This passage contains the most extensive and most descriptive use of the “body” metaphor yet:
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (1 Corinthians 12:12-27 ESV)
This passage is very interesting, jumping back and forth between referring to a physical body and a metaphorical body.
First, in the previous section, Paul had been talking about the diversity of spiritual gifts and the unity of purpose in God. He begins the body references in 1 Corinthians 12:12 to illustrate this diversity in unity. In that verse, Paul refers to a physical body and the members of that physical body. Then, at the end of 1 Corinthians 12:12 (“And so it is with Christ”), Paul transitions into the metaphorical use of “body” in 1 Corinthians 12:13. The Spirit baptizes (immerses) people into a body, referring once again to a corporate unity / community as before.
Beginning in 1 Corinthians 12:14 through 1 Corinthians 12:26, Paul again returns to the physical body illustration, further explaining what he meant in 1 Corinthians 12. In this long passages, he discusses the relationships to physical parts of a body to other physical parts of a body, and their mutual relationship to the body itself.
Then, in 1 Corinthians 12:27, Paul returns to the metaphorical use of the term “body” calling the Corinthians by the phrase “body of Christ.” (This is the first time so far that we’ve seen “body of Christ.”) Thus, the descriptions previously of the relationships of physical members to a physical body were given in order to help the Corinthians understand their relationship to each other in Christ.
So, most of the usages of the term “body” in this passage are not metaphorical but instead refer to a physical body for purposes of illustration. Only the occurrences of the term “body” in 1 Corinthians 12:13 and 1 Corinthians 12:27 refer to a metaphorical “body,” i.e., a community or corporate unity. The physical body illustration, however, are important in understanding the relationships among those who make up the community / corporate unity.
Although Paul uses the term “head” in 1 Corinthians 12:22, he does not use it in the sense of Christ being the “head of the body.” Instead, in this passage, “head” is simply used as another example of a member of the body, along with the hand, eye, ear, foot, etc. So, while this metaphorical body (community / corporate unity) is created by the Spirit and belongs to Christ (“body of Christ”), the metaphor is primarily used to indication the relationship between the various members to one another and to the group as a whole. Nothing else is said about the members’ relationship to Jesus Christ or to the community’s relationship to Jesus Christ.
So, in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, while we find out that the community is created by the Spirit and belongs to Christ, the “body” metaphor is once again primarily used to indicate how the individuals should relate to one another as a community (i.e., diversity in unity).
———————————
“Body of Christ” Metaphor Series
The Body of Christ Metaphor: 1 Corinthians 10-11
As I explained in the “Introduction” of this series, I am stepping through the passages in the New Testament in which the authors (primarily Paul – perhaps only Paul) use the term “body” in a metaphorical sense. As I read through these passages, I’m going to be asking these kinds of questions: What is Paul comparing to a “body”? What comparison is he making? At what point does it seem the comparison ends? How is this usage similar to or different from other usages?
Now, the term “body” is found often in Scripture. It usually refers to an actual body… that is, a person physical body. But, there are a few times when the term “body” does not refer to a person’s physical body, but is used in a metaphorical sense. I’ve already discussed the usages of “body” in Romans 12:4-5, and in this post I’ll look at the uses of the term body in 1 Corinthians 10-11.
The next instance (in canonical order) of a metaphorical use of “body” is found in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 –
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. (1 Corinthians 10:16-17 ESV)
Now, the term translated “participation” above (twice) is the same term often translated “fellowship” or “sharing,” and it is a very important term in this context. In this section of his letter, Paul is distinguishing between fellowship with Christ and fellowship with idols/demons.
While the first use of the term “body” above (in 1 Corinthians 10:16) could refer to either Christ’s physical body (paralleled with “blood”), or it could refer to a corporate unity or community as we saw in Romans 12:4-5. However, the second occurrence of the term (in 1 Corinthians 10:17) seems to refer to the corporate unity or community.
Again, there is a focus on the “many” and “one” characteristic of the Christian community, which is associated with the sharing of the body/blood of Christ. Without going into detail (which he will do in chapter 12), Paul still recognizes the diversity among the parts of the community, even though he also recognizes that they are unified – one.
The next occurrences of the term “body” are found in 1 Corinthians 11 –
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29 ESV)
Both of the instances of the term “body” above could refer to the physical body of Jesus (paralleled with “blood” again). However, it’s also possible that the second occurrence refers to the community in Christ, since the focus in the passage is the relationships (or lack thereof) among the believers in Corinth.
However, either way, this passage does not give us much new information about metaphorical use of the term “body.” Once again, though, we do not see Paul referring to a “body of Christ” as he will later. Instead, if the term is used metaphorically in these passages (1 Corinthians 10-11), it is once again referring to the community of believers who are both diverse and also unified because of their participation in (fellowship with) Christ.
———————————
“Body of Christ” Metaphor Series
The Body of Christ Metaphor: Romans 12:4-5
As I explained in the “Introduction” of this series, I am stepping through the passages in the New Testament in which the authors (primarily Paul – perhaps only Paul) use the term “body” in a metaphorical sense. As I read through these passages, I’m going to be asking these kinds of questions: What is Paul comparing to a “body”? What comparison is he making? At what point does it seem the comparison ends? How is this usage similar to or different from other usages?
Now, the term “body” is found often in Scripture. It usually refers to an actual body… that is, a person physical body. But, there are a few times when the term “body” does not refer to a person’s physical body, but is used in a metaphorical sense.
The first instances (in canonical order) of the metaphorical use of “body” is found in Romans 12, within a passage in which Paul is writing about spiritual gifts:
For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness. (Romans 12:3-8 ESV)
I’m sure that some will disagree with me, but Paul does not actually refer to a “body of Christ” (that is, “Christ’s body”) in this passage. Instead, he says that we are a body “in Christ,” which is different. According to Paul, he and his readers are a “body” together because they are all in Christ together.
So, this appears to be a more general metaphorical use of “body,” much like we find in other literature of the same time period. “Body,” in this case, refers to a “community” or “corporate personality.” (See my post “The Body Metaphor in Paul: Familiar and yet unique” in which I examine Robert Bank’s discussion of the term “body” in different religious, philosophical, and social contexts in the first century.)
In fact, there is no suggestion in this passage of Jesus’ relationship to the “body.” Paul does not refer to Jesus as the head of the body, which he will state in other passages. Instead, he only says that the body exists because “we” are “in Christ.”
In this passage, then, the “body” metaphor reminds the readers of their connection to one another because they are “in Christ.” The focus is on their unity with one another and their connection to one another. Similarly, Paul uses the “body” metaphor in this passage to remind his reader that their unity is made of a collection of diverse (different) parts. Their diversity does not damage or deny their unity. (We’ll find that Paul often uses the “body” metaphor to reinforce this idea of unity with diversity.)
So, in Romans 12:4-5, Paul uses the “body” metaphor to remind his readers that they are a corporate unity or community in Christ with one another even though they are different (specifically, even though they have been given different gifts).
———————————
“Body of Christ” Metaphor Series
The Body of Christ Metaphor: Introduction
While reading a chapter in one of my favorite books on the church, I was inspired to study the “body” metaphor in Scripture. (See my post “The Body Metaphor in Paul: Familiar and yet unique.”) While reading that chapter, I realize that I had never looked into that metaphor for myself. I don’t really expect to find anything different or unusual. But, since I want to study it more, I thought I would share what I found on my blog.
Metaphors are interesting… and dangerous. As a figure of speech, a metaphor is a great way to explain one thing by comparing it to something else, usually something more familiar. Of course, the danger is that it’s easy to press a metaphor too far or to assume that people using a similar metaphor making the same kind of comparison.
For example, Jesus uses leaven as a metaphor, but he uses it different ways. (Consider Matthew 13:33 and Matthew 16:6.) Also, it’s easy to take a comparison too far, assuming too many points of comparison between original point and the metaphor.
I wonder if Paul always uses the “body” metaphor in the say way, or if he uses it in different ways at different times, depending on the point he is communicating or explaining to his readers. So, as I read through these passages, I’m going to be asking these kinds of questions: What Paul comparing to a “body”? What comparison is he making? At what point does it seem the comparison ends? How is this usage similar to or different from other usages?
(By the way, I mention Paul above because he is the only New Testament writer who uses the “body” metaphor. Well, there is one usage in the Book of Hebrews. Perhaps Paul wrote that, and perhaps he didn’t. I think he did, but it doesn’t really matter in this discussion.)
The word “body” is used many times in Scripture, often referring to a physical body. In this study, I’m particularly interested in those metaphorical usages of the term “body”… those times when we usually refer to it as “the body of Christ” even if the “of Christ” is not actually part of the passage.
As far as I can tell, these are the verses or passages in which the term “body” is used in that metaphorical sense.
Romans 12:4-5
1 Corinthians 10:16-17
1 Corinthians 11:27-29
1 Corinthians 12:12-27
Ephesians 1:23
Ephesians 3:6
Ephesians 4:4-16
Ephesians 5:23
Ephesians 5:30
Colossians 1:18
Colossians 1:24
Colossians 2:19
Colossians 3:15
Hebrews 13:3
So, over the next few days, I’m going to step through those passages. I’ll probably combine some of the passages into single quotes. But, the longer passages will each require their own post.
I look forward to your input as I work through the “body” metaphor in Scripture.
To kick this off, I thought I’d ask you a question: What is the first thing you think of when you hear the phrase “body of Christ”? (And, if possible, I’d prefer to just a short answer… as short as possible. I’m not asking for a complete description… just the first thing you think about.)
———————————
“Body of Christ” Metaphor Series
The Pilgrim Church: The whole church cannot be seen and cannot act in any one place
Yesterday, in a comment on another post, Chuck from “Being Filled” mentioned a book that I had not heard of before but which is available free online: The Pilgrim Church by E.H. Broadbent.
The book has the following subtitle: “Being some account of the continuance through succeeding centuries of churches practising the principles taught and exemplified in the New Testament.”
Unfortunately, I haven’t had time to read much of this book, but I did read a page or two. And, at the very beginning (the third and fourth paragraph), I read this:
As this body, the whole Church of Christ, cannot be seen and cannot act in any one place, since many of its members are already with Christ and others scattered throughout the world, it is appointed to be actually known and to bear its testimony in the form of churches of God in various places and at different times. Each of these consists of those disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ who, in the place where they live, gather together in His Name. To such the presence of the Lord in their midst is promised and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is given in different ways through all the members (Matt. 18.20; 1 Cor. 12.7).
Each of these churches stands in direct relationship to the Lord, draws its authority from Him and is responsible to Him (Rev. 2 and 3). There is no suggestion that one church should control another or that any organised union of churches should exist, but an intimate personal fellowship unites them (Acts 15.36).
Like I said, I haven’t read much more than this in the book, but I have an idea that this quote tells us quite a bit about the focus of Broadbent’s book (the lack of “organized union of churches” for example). So far, I like his foci:
- Believers that are scattered around the world.
- All disciples of Jesus Christ in one area united together.
- Each church under the authority of Jesus Christ alone.
- A church connected to one another through fellowship and relationships.
Of these various concepts, I only see the first one actively displayed today. We recognize generally that believers are scattered around the world. But, we rarely see all disciples in one are united together, acting under the authority of Jesus Christ alone, and connected to one another through fellowship and relationship.
In fact, while we recognize believers scattered around the world today, we typically accept that we are also scattered locally as well. And, for the most part, we’re happy with that.
You see, when Broadbent writes, “[T]he whole Church of Christ cannot be seen and cannot act in any one place,” he means that we are scattered around the world. But, today, we would have to say that “the whole Church of Christ cannot be seen and connection act in any one place” – in any one location – because we are divided from one another and refuse to unite in the Spirit of God.
It makes me wonder… whatever divides me from brothers and sisters in Christ is something that I’m submitting to instead of submitting to God.
Replay: The trans-congregational church
Three and a half years ago, I wrote a post called “The trans-congregational church.” I wrote the post in a response to an article in which the author used the term “trans-congregational church.” In some ways, I think the author was onto something. But, in other ways, the term and the article point to problems among groups of Christians today that prohibit (or at list hinder) the kind of “trans-congregational” relationships that we read about in Scripture. What do you think?
——————————-
The trans-congregational church
In a recent study concern community development in the New Testament, I came across an article called “The Trans-Congregational Church in the New Testament” by Jefrey Kloha (Concordia Journal 34 no 3, July 2008, 172-190).
In this article, Kloha suggests that the term “ekklesia” was used for local congregations that generally met in houses, and more generally for the church-at-large – the heavenly assembly – the “universal church” – the una sancta. But, Kloha says there is a third usage of the term “ekklesia” in the New Testament, which he calls “the trans-congregational church”. He says this “trans-congregational church” consisted of “several (or many) local congregations conceived of corporately”. (173)
Kloha suggests several examples of “the trans-congregational church” in the New Testament. For example, he says that the “church in Jerusalem” could not have met in one place – even the temple courts – so, they must have met in many locations. However, they were considered a single “church”. Also, Kloha says the singular use of “ekklesia” in Acts 9:31 indicates that the individual congregations of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria were considered one church. (Yes, he does discuss the plural variant in this passage, albeit briefly.)
Also, Kloha suggests that the trans-congregational church is demonstrated in the relationships between churches. For example, there is a close connection between the church of Jerusalem and the church of Antioch. Kloha recalls that Paul told the church in Collosae to read his letter to the Laodiceans, and vice versa, indicating a relational connection between the congregations – or multiple congregations – in each city. Paul recognizes the relationships between the various churches in Rome as well (Romans 16).
I think that Kloha has pointed out something that may be missing among the church today. The church has become so exclusive and independent that we often miss the fact that we are united with other brothers and sisters in Christ as well – not only with the ones that meet with us from day-to-day or week-to-week. Kloha offers this concern at the end of his article as well:
By ignoring the NT understanding of the trans-congregational nature of the church we have weakened the bonds of fellowship, mutual concern and support, and unity in doctrine and practice which should inform and indeed define our life together as church. By turning again to the New Testament we might sharpen our understanding of church and apply that understanding to our structure. (191)
I think Kloha has inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) pointed to one of the problem – structure. Many churches have structured themselves in a way that precludes trans-congregational relationships.
In the life of our community, we have seen this in action. We often encourage our brothers and sisters to meet with other churches. In fact, our elders have met with other churches. Of course, we have to explain that we are not unhappy with our church, nor are we interested in “joining” their church. We simply want to build relationships with other brothers and sisters in Christ.
When we talk about the possibility of other “church members” or leadership meeting with us to further build relationships, this seems strange and odd to them – like they would be unfaithful to their church or their pastor.
Our view of church has become so exclusive and structured that we have a hard time recognizing our relationship to those in “other churches”. So, I agree with Kloha that we have (for the most part) lost this idea of “the trans-congregational church”.
What do you think? Is it important for believers to have “trans-congregational” relationships? Why or why not?
Working with other Christians, but not under their organizations
My good friend Eric at “Pilgrim’s Progress” is one of my favorite bloggers. His latest post is called “Two Different Directions,” and the post itself when in a different direction that I thought it would… and was much better than I thought it would be.
Eric begins by pointing out the gatherings of believers seem to be growing in two directions (thus the title of his post): either larger and larger or smaller and smaller. (As an aside, I think this difference is a demonstration of and a living out of a different understanding of what it means to be the church.)
But, when Eric gets into the meat of his post, he takes a turn in a different direction:
It is painfully obvious for all involved that those of us in simple church life reject almost all of the shenanigans that go on in the mega church. However, there are many Christians in mega churches who want to make disciples just as much as we do. Therefore, we have a challenge of working with them while at the same time not working under the constraints of their large institutional framework. How can we do this?
He follows his question with five suggestions about working in unity with those who disagree with us (primarily disagree about the church, but this could include other types of disagreements as well).
Seriously, I love this! Yes, we disagree about what it means to be the church, whether the church is an organization or whether church is the people. And, we disagree about why we gather together and how that purpose is best carried out.
But, if we are in Christ together, then we are brothers/sisters, and we are put together by God for a reason. And, that reason is NOT to argue with one another.
Thanks, Eric, for exhorting us to live in the unity we already have in Christ, in spite of our disagreements!
Unity – like love – is part of God’s nature – but not always part of God’s children
This post has a subtitle: “Why do God’s children struggle so much to demonstrate that unity – or love?”
In the Pentateuch, we read, “The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4 ESV) Jesus prayed that God’s children (his followers) would demonstrate that same unity: “[I ask] that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us… that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one…” (John 17:20-23 ESV) (By the way, in that same prayer, Jesus refers to the glory of God in the context of this unity… both his unity with God, our unity with God, and our unity with one another.)
Unity is part of God’s nature, just as love and holiness and justice and sovereignty is part of God’s nature. And, in Christ, we demonstrate that unity both in our relationship with God and in our relationships with one another.
So… returning to my subtitle… why do God’s children struggle so much to demonstrate that unity?
And, we can’t chalk this one up to problems that have arisen over the last 2000 years or so. How do I know? Because, in the New Testament, the problem of division and/or an exhortation toward unity and harmony is included in almost every (perhaps every) letter written to groups of believers – that is, groups of God’s children who are followers of Jesus Christ and indwelled by the Holy Spirit.
These people did not have hundreds of years of religious traditions, denominationalism, and bickering to blame for their divisions and their lack of unity.
No, those early believers could not blame others for their divisions. They could only accept that they were responsible for failing to live in the Holy Spirit as demonstrated by failing to live in unity with one another.
Unity is still part of God’s nature – part of the nature of the God who indwells and calls us his children and gives us a new nature and empowers us to live in that nature. When we do not accept and live with other believers as real brothers and sisters (as God accepts them in Jesus Christ), then we are not living in the power of the Spirit. When we do not live in the fellowship with one another (not just with our lips but with our lives), then we are not following Jesus Christ.
The problem is not with our traditions or their traditions. The problem is not with our hierarchy or their hierarchy. The problem is not with our denomination or their denomination. The problem is not with our system of theology or their system of theology.
The problem is with submission to God as his child and living in the power of the Spirit in order to demonstrate the nature of God – which includes unity with God and unity with his children.
It’s about life in Christ, not ideologies about Christ
I often write about different concepts and ideas related to being in Christ and part of the body of Christ, that is, the church. However, being in Christ is not about concepts and ideas. Being in Christ is about living.
When I first started this blog, I wrote about things that I was investigating in my PhD studies. However, I soon realized that I could not discuss ideas on a purely conceptual basis. So, almost everything that I write hear began with a real-life conversation or a real-life struggle or problem.
I was reminded of this last week when I had coffee with a good friend. We talked about the series that I wrote last week on the topic of unity. (See the introductory post called “Unity: The Series.”)
We quickly moved from discussing the concepts related to unity to talking about real life situations related to unity among the body of Christ. Then, our discussion moved from focusing on unity to focusing on our life in Christ in general. We talked about some of our recent struggles and some recent areas of growth and encouragement.
My friend made an observation: it is easier to live in unity if we actually share our lives with one another. Disunity pops up when we argue and disagree about concepts and ideologies, but we don’t share our lives with one another. My friend and I have seen this in our own lives, because we are able to live in unity with one another in Christ in spite of our differences.
His observation also reminded me of something my family experienced a couple of weeks ago when we spent a week in Virginia serving some people in the Norfolk area with other believers. We spent the week working together, not talking about issues of disagreement. And, there were disagreements – the kind of disagreements that have often caused followers of Jesus Christ to separate from one another. But, there was also real unity, in spite of those disagreements.
Our life in Christ is just that: life. It’s not simply concepts or ideologies about Christ. Instead, as John said in his first letter, it’s about sharing our lives with one another (fellowship) which is also sharing our lives with God the Father and with his son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3)
Perhaps, our struggles with unity would not be as difficult if we truly shared our lives with one another instead of spending as much time discussing issues, topics of theology, concepts, or other ideologies.
What do you think?
Unity begins and ends in Jesus Christ
As I mentioned in a previous post (“Unity: The Series“), this week I’m writing a series on the topic of unity among the body of Christ. I suggested that we are united in Christ, but we are not generally living in that unity (“We ARE united, but we are NOT united“). Then, I wrote that humility is the work of unity (“Doing the work of unity“), while refusing to consider other as more important than yourself (the opposite of humility) is the work of division (“Doing the work of division“). Now, remember, I am talking about unity among those who are in Christ, who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, who are followers of Jesus Christ, who are children of God. This is the beginning point of my series. Throughout the series, you can assume that these are the people that I am talking about.
We considering the unity or lack of unity among the body of Christ, we must understand one basic point: Jesus Christ is the source and the focus of all unity. A lack of unity is an indication of a lack of living in the Spirit of Christ. We can give different reasons, excuses, and justifications. But, for those who are in Christ and living according to his will, unity among the children of God is the only option.
Unity is not about holding on to one another, but about holding on to Jesus Christ. This may seem like an obvious statement, but it is foundational to our lives in Christ and our shared lives with one another. Choosing to separate from others who are in Christ is an indications that we are not holding on to him.
If we find that we are held together by a location, a human leader or leadership team, an organizational structure, a denomination or tradition, a set of covenants or bylaws, or anything else, then our unity is not in Jesus Christ, and we are not living in unity with the body of Christ. In other words, we can unite with others (on our terms), and yet NOT be united in Christ. Unity can be found in many things, but the unity we need is ONLY found in Jesus Christ.
Yes, I know that some have been pushed aside, ostracized, refused fellowship. You cannot choose whether or not another follows Jesus Christ in unity. However, like Paul, you can still live at peace with all people as far as it depends on you. How? By accepting all whom God has accepted in Jesus Christ, whether those people accept you or not. This is a true demonstration of finding unity in Jesus Christ.
There is only one body of Christ. And all who have been accepted by God in Jesus Christ are part of that body. When we are living in Christ and following him, the we also accept everyone who is in Christ, in spite of disagreements, differences, or injury. This is the unity that begins and ends in Jesus Christ.
———————————