Peter Wagner has pointed out an often overlooked tool in interpreting the biblical material on spiritual gifts—the body metaphor. Paul gives us the analogy of a human body in each of his three passages on gifts and in I Corinthians 12 he elaborates on the metaphor for about sixteen verses. Given the prominence of the analogy, Wagner is almost certainly correct in calling it the “hermeneutical key ” to understanding spiritual gifts. The analogy is given in all three of Paul’s spiritual gift passages, so what are the potential insights and why are they so often overlooked?
We are given gifts. “We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.” (Romans 12:6)
We are part of Christ’s Body. “So we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members of one another.” (Romans 12:5)
Christ’s Body functions like a human body. (I Cor. 12:12-27)
Therefore, the functioning of our gift is like the functioning of a part of a human body. So when Paul speaks of an eye seeing, that is like a server serving or a teacher teaching.
One form of the syllogism would read:
Spiritual gifts = parts of Christ’s body.
We = parts of Christ’s body.
We = our spiritual gift.
Can we take Paul to say that we not only have a gift but are our gift? This would be consistent with the analogy. An eye is defined by being an eye. That is not just part of its job, it is the entire function and aspect of what that part of the body is and does. Each eye will have a different size, shape, and color that make it unique, but even this variety is interpreted in the context of being an eye.
How literally can we take the body analogy? The majority of interpreters take it as a weak or vague and imprecise metaphor. The main lesson being a basic unity in diversity message. We have differences and must work together to make constructive use of those differences. Anything more than this is reading too much into the analogy. What if, however, we took the analogy literally and believed that the body of Christ did work like a human body? What are the insights that we could then draw from it?
Body parts have a fixed structure and function over time.
An arm is an arm from one day to the next. In fact, from birth until death each part keeps the same basic shape and function. Any changes are gradual and in response to growing, aging, or environmental stresses, but the same basic shape is retained and is always identifiable. The lesson from analogy is that we keep the same basic structure and function (gifting) within the Body of Christ, i.e., our gifts do not change over time.
Body parts have a fixed relationship to each other.
An arm is always attached to the shoulder and a leg is always attached to the hip. This is like the personality types of the MBTI—each type is related to the types around it in the same way according to psychological functions and attitudes. The lesson from analogy is that the parts of Christ’s body (gifted members) are always related to each other by function in exactly the same way from one day to the next. If we added new gifts (or functions) over time this would not be the case.
Bodies never have mixed parts.
An arm is always just an arm from one example we see to the next. We never find an arm-leg mix, or an arm-eye mix, or any other form of mixed parts. The lesson from analogy here is that the Body of Christ does not have different part mixes, so that local groups of believer’s do not either. Therefore, the gifting we see from one group of believers to the next should be consistent, not a variety of gift mixes. And if there is not a variety of gift mixes, then a position of one gift each is strongly implied by the body metaphor .
Bodies have a genetic code.
Perhaps the least recognized implication of the body analogy is the genetic code. In our physical bodies the basic size, shape, and function of every part is determined before those parts ever come into existence. The parallel with the Body of Christ is that the parts of Christ’s body were decided from conception as well. Paul tells us that we were chosen “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). This verse suggests that God decided our part in the Body (I Cor. 12:18), which is our gift, before the universe existed . It is a sobering thought that we are playing a role in such an ancient script, not a role decided when we entered the Body based on the needs of the moment.
This also brings up a practical dilemma. Just because our gift (place in the body) is pre-determined, does that mean that we are pre-shaped to fill that position before we are part of the body? If a person is an eye in the body of Christ, did she have the shape of an eye before entering the body? If she did not, then that implies a fundamental reshaping of some sort upon salvation. This kind of reshaping of function and ability is not typically reported by believers. A gift-type theory would suggest, however, that our predetermined gift can be seen in what we call our personality type, which shapes us to fulfill a specific role in the body of Christ.
These lessons do not require that we read material into the text, but flow from it naturally if we take a specific, literal approach to the body metaphor. So, why then are these positions an extreme minority among scholars and teachers of spiritual gifts? Possibly, because accepting them would contradict many commonly held beliefs about the gifts, some of which involve peoples personally held beliefs about their own gifting.
Explicit Lessons
We are given gifts. “We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.” (Romans 12:6)
We are part of Christ’s Body. “So we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members of one another.” (Romans 12:5)
Christ’s Body functions like a human body. (I Cor. 12:12-27)
Therefore, the functioning of our gift is like the functioning of a part of a human body. So when Paul speaks of an eye seeing, that is like a server serving or a teacher teaching.
One form of the syllogism would read:
Spiritual gifts = parts of Christ’s body.
We = parts of Christ’s body.
We = our spiritual gift.
Can we take Paul to say that we not only have a gift but are our gift? This would be consistent with the analogy. An eye is defined by being an eye. That is not just part of its job, it is the entire function and aspect of what that part of the body is and does. Each eye will have a different size, shape, and color that make it unique, but even this variety is interpreted in the context of being an eye.
Implicit Lessons
How literally can we take the body analogy? The majority of interpreters take it as a weak or vague and imprecise metaphor. The main lesson being a basic unity in diversity message. We have differences and must work together to make constructive use of those differences. Anything more than this is reading too much into the analogy. What if, however, we took the analogy literally and believed that the body of Christ did work like a human body? What are the insights that we could then draw from it?
Body parts have a fixed structure and function over time.
An arm is an arm from one day to the next. In fact, from birth until death each part keeps the same basic shape and function. Any changes are gradual and in response to growing, aging, or environmental stresses, but the same basic shape is retained and is always identifiable. The lesson from analogy is that we keep the same basic structure and function (gifting) within the Body of Christ, i.e., our gifts do not change over time.
Body parts have a fixed relationship to each other.
An arm is always attached to the shoulder and a leg is always attached to the hip. This is like the personality types of the MBTI—each type is related to the types around it in the same way according to psychological functions and attitudes. The lesson from analogy is that the parts of Christ’s body (gifted members) are always related to each other by function in exactly the same way from one day to the next. If we added new gifts (or functions) over time this would not be the case.
Bodies never have mixed parts.
An arm is always just an arm from one example we see to the next. We never find an arm-leg mix, or an arm-eye mix, or any other form of mixed parts. The lesson from analogy here is that the Body of Christ does not have different part mixes, so that local groups of believer’s do not either. Therefore, the gifting we see from one group of believers to the next should be consistent, not a variety of gift mixes. And if there is not a variety of gift mixes, then a position of one gift each is strongly implied by the body metaphor .
Bodies have a genetic code.
Perhaps the least recognized implication of the body analogy is the genetic code. In our physical bodies the basic size, shape, and function of every part is determined before those parts ever come into existence. The parallel with the Body of Christ is that the parts of Christ’s body were decided from conception as well. Paul tells us that we were chosen “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). This verse suggests that God decided our part in the Body (I Cor. 12:18), which is our gift, before the universe existed . It is a sobering thought that we are playing a role in such an ancient script, not a role decided when we entered the Body based on the needs of the moment.
This also brings up a practical dilemma. Just because our gift (place in the body) is pre-determined, does that mean that we are pre-shaped to fill that position before we are part of the body? If a person is an eye in the body of Christ, did she have the shape of an eye before entering the body? If she did not, then that implies a fundamental reshaping of some sort upon salvation. This kind of reshaping of function and ability is not typically reported by believers. A gift-type theory would suggest, however, that our predetermined gift can be seen in what we call our personality type, which shapes us to fulfill a specific role in the body of Christ.
These lessons do not require that we read material into the text, but flow from it naturally if we take a specific, literal approach to the body metaphor. So, why then are these positions an extreme minority among scholars and teachers of spiritual gifts? Possibly, because accepting them would contradict many commonly held beliefs about the gifts, some of which involve peoples personally held beliefs about their own gifting.
powered by performancing firefox
No comments:
Post a Comment