Christ is the Body, "the Body-Christ"

[Trapped]

Quote from Lee’s ministry:

"Verse 12 says, "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 the Christ" (Gk.). In this verse Paul brings in the concept that Christ is the Body. You may be familiar with the fact that in verse 12 we see the Body-Christ, the corporate Christ, not the individual Christ. Yes, we are the corporate Christ. However, if we are dumb when we gather together in the meetings, Christ has no way to come forth. He cannot come forth when we are silent. But when we are spiritual, speaking and functioning in the meetings, Christ comes out. When you speak for Christ, Christ comes forth in your speaking. If we all speak forth Christ, then the corporate Christ, the Body-Christ, will come forth. This is Christ as the Body. In order to have the Body-Christ, we all need to speak."

Lee makes a leap here that I just don't see, although maybe it is legitimate, in which case I welcome an explanation. I don't read 1 Cor. 12:12 and get the concept that "Christ is the Body". I read it and get that many members of the human body are one, and in like manner all the members of Christ's Body are one, including with Christ Himself, the Head.

Using a term like “the corporate Christ” or “the Body-Christ” seems unnecessary and like they could easily lead to a misunderstanding of the concept. It’s as if we are Christ without Him, or as if there are two Christs......the Head-Christ and the Body-Christ, or Christ and the corporate Christ. We have the Biblical phrase “the Body of Christ".......why torque it into “the Body-Christ”??

The verse, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” does come to mind, when of course in reality Saul was persecuting the believers, the Body. In the LC this was always explained as persecuting the believers is persecuting the Lord Himself, with the example given that if someone punches your arm, you don’t say “Ow, why did you punch my arm?” you say “Ow, why did you punch ME?”

But other Bible commentaries on this verse say things like “Christ speaks of Himself as persecuted by Saul, because ‘in all the affliction of his people he is afflicted’ (Isaiah 63:9), and ‘whoso toucheth them, toucheth the apple of his eye’ (Zechariah 2:8).” This kind of explanation seems to me to provide one healthy degree of removal......kind of emphasizing how great the Lord’s love is for us that persecuting us is like persecuting Him, rather than, essentially, we = Christ.

Another thought is that in the analogy, where punching my arm is punching ME, and that my body = ME, well.......our body ISN’T actually us. Our body just “houses” us. What is “us” continues on after death and ever after the body has decayed away. So in that sense, it’s like the body is what contains and carries out the functions of us, and in the same way the Body is what contains and carries out the functions of Christ, and in this way persecuting the Body is persecuting Christ, but the body doesn’t EQUAL Christ. After all, how could Christ marry Christ?

I may be off here and am happy to be enlightened. Maybe this is mysterious and has to remain that way. Just thinking out loud mostly.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Another thought is that in the analogy, where punching my arm is punching ME, and that my body = ME, well.......our body ISN’T actually us. Our body just “houses” us. What is “us” continues on after death and ever after the body has decayed away. So in that sense, it’s like the body is what contains and carries out the functions of us, and in the same way the Body is what contains and carries out the functions of Christ, and in this way persecuting the Body is persecuting Christ, but the body doesn’t EQUAL Christ. After all, how could Christ marry Christ?

Just another way Lee was in error. This belongs in Lee's list of strikeouts. Of course the Body isn't Christ, anymore than we are becoming God. It's another example of how if Lee had allowed his teaching to get vetted by the Body () this kind of nonsense would have been filtered out. But he was too proud for that. No one could tell him anything and he wouldn't listen to anybody.

Whenever he said the Body is Christ or the Church is Christ, that was just a pretext to teaching we should submit to the Church or Body like we submit to Christ, which was one more nail in the coffin of control. Lee was all about getting people in bondage to the Church, that is, his church. The more bondage the better as far as he was concerned. But since he was the MOTA, he was above it all. We minions, however, were expected to be.

Actually, he wanted everyone to be in bondage to him, so it's probably more accurate to say he thought he was the Church.

[Trapped]

On the "why do you persecute me" thing......I think the explanation is much more simple than Lee's "believers = Christ". In Acts 26:9 Paul says, "I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth."

It's just that the Lord knew what was in Saul's heart which is why He had grounds to ask why he was persecuting Him, because that really was Saul's motivation. Really, Saul WAS opposing Jesus. But Jesus isn't around to directly oppose. So he takes it out on Jesus's followers. He is persecuting Jesus, that's his driving force, but the only way he can practically do it is to inflict harm upon Christians. Like if someone was so angry at a former spouse they murdered their children......the ex-spouse could still ask "why did you do this to me?" even though the act was on someone else. It doesn't mean the children ARE the parent.

Sorry for the graphic example, but ahhhhhhhhh it is so wonderful to be able to pause at things that I have a hard time swallowing but never knew why, and actually figure out what's wrong with it.

"Strikeouts" also deal a big blow to the concept of this stuff being "the ministry of the age". Where are the "strikeouts" in the Bible (the real ministry of the age)?? They aren't there. But Lee's stuff has many. It is not "the" ministry. It's just one fallen man's ministry.

Man is it a lonely journey discovering this stuff surrounded by people who continually claim "it's all in the ministry!" "All our help can be found in the ministry!"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

On the "why do you persecute me" thing......I think the explanation is much more simple than Lee's "believers = Christ".

I was deceived by this a long time, thinking that Christ is the body, and they are inseparable. It can almost make one a slave of the system. If Christ is the body, then one can serve hours on end thinking that the Lord is being served and is pleased. In the end, however, one becomes married to the church, and has neither the Lord nor a family.

All the serving to the church robs one of Christ, of one's personal relationship with Him. One is also robbed of one's family, since emdless hours were invested serving the church. Neither the Lord is pleased, nor is your wife happy. The bosses on top actually have an easier life than their lieutenants beneath them saddled with all the work.

[Truthseeker]

It's false christ. I read Lee's message for a long time. First, I was convinced that we were corporate Christ and we were Christ like Him. But Lord Jesus exposes me and Lee's teaching by confirming that Lee preached false Christs:

At that time if anyone says to you, Behold here is the Christ! Or, here! Do not believe it.
For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders so as to lead astray, if possible even the chosen.
Behold, I have told you beforehand.
Therefore if they say to you, Behold, He is in wilderness, do not go forth; Behold, He is in the inner room, do not believe it.

(Matthew 24:23-26)


Lord Jesus's warning is precious. He enlightens me and brings me back to Him and saves me from Lee's false Christs.

[Cal]

In Matthew 25:40,45, Jesus says the "least of these" are "him" also. So does that mean each of us are Christ too in the way the Body is supposed to be Christ according to Lee? If so, does that mean people need to serve me night and day and neglect their families to do so. I don't recall that teaching by Lee.

Clearly the Bible uses metaphors and the like, and each one has to be interpreted in the context of the whole Bible. When Jesus said you did to me, he meant that figuratively. He meant that he takes personally how we treat others. To take it to mean that the Church really is Christ so we need to be at the meeting hall night and day is just missing it.

This is why you need a guiding principle to interpret everything. And the best one is in 1 Cor 13. Without love nothing means anything. Love what? A great ministry? The institution of the Church? The Recovery? No. We are to love God and love people. These are first and second commandments. If you interpret every verse from the standpoint that God loves us and loves people and we are to love God and people as well, it's hard to go too far wrong.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

On the "why do you persecute me" thing......I think the explanation is much more simple than Lee's "believers = Christ". In Acts 26:9 Paul says, "I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth."

It's just that the Lord knew what was in Saul's heart which is why He had grounds to ask why he was persecuting Him, because that really was Saul's motivation. Really, Saul WAS opposing Jesus. But Jesus isn't around to directly oppose. So he takes it out on Jesus's followers.

The principle of agency was widely understood and used by the writers of the NT, and it keeps us from conflating things that we shouldn't. The servant is the extension of the master. The emissary is the extension of the far-off king, and speaks for him. But the servant is not the master, nor the emissary the king. Yet the emissary can rightly say, "When you see me, you see the king", and the servant, "When I speak, the master speaks." Early NT readers would have understood this.

For example, see the message from the centurion to Jesus. The centurion represented, even personified, Caesar's will to the those under him. He was, "a man under authority" (Luke 7:8). Yet the centurion was not Caesar, ontologically speaking. One doesn't need an advanced degree to get this. Most of the audience would have been clear about what was being communicated, and what was not.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Trapped

"Verse 12 says, "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 the Christ" (Gk.). In this verse Paul brings in the concept that Christ is the Body."

To me this verse is saying as the body is one and has many members, so also Christ has a body which has many members yet is one body.

There may be other verses that support "Christ is the Body", but this verse doesn't do it for me.

What about this verse: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Christ IS ALL and in all. How do we interpret "Christ is all" in this case then?

Trapped

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

To me this verse is saying as the body is one and has many members, so also Christ has a body which has many members yet is one body.

There may be other verses that support "Christ is the Body", but this verse doesn't do it for me.

What about this verse: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Christ IS ALL and in all. How do we interpret "Christ is all" in this case then?

Trapped

If there are no more gentiles, then why does Paul write of "churches of the gentiles" in Roman's 16:4? If there is no more male or female, why does he then ask women to be quiet in church? If there is no longer slave or free, why does he advise slaves to obey their masters?

The danger is that we read too much into the "neither" of something and the "all" of something else. Paul's looking at our primary identification, our allegiance, our value sets. In these, Christ should supersede all. It doesnt mean that the other things no longer categorically exist, or that one category has swallowed all. In our behaviours, yes, we should "act as if" Christ were all in all. But as an ontological matter it makes no sense.

Paul said, Greeks love wisdom. Clearly they can love wisdom too much, and overthink the process.

One of my primary touchstones is Dorcas/Tabitha. Nothing is said of her theology, but of her good works, and the tears of the widows. So there is clear evidence of the love of Christ out-poured. Really, there is nothing else. To me, this is the "Christ as all and in all." If you get this, you get everything.

"Who is that servant, when the Master comes, he finds them so doing? Truly I tell you, the Master will place them over the whole house." The "so doing" here is not holding forth on declensions of Greek verbs but rendering real, practical care to those who cannot repay you in this age. This is love. This is what Christ did for us, and what he as the Master of the house expects of us.

Philosophical speculations are only the handmaiden to love and good works.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Trapped

To me this verse is saying as the body is one and has many members, so also Christ has a body which has many members yet is one body.

There may be other verses that support "Christ is the Body", but this verse doesn't do it for me.

What about this verse: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Christ IS ALL and in all. How do we interpret "Christ is all" in this case then?

Trapped

Below is a link to a Greek inter linear of 1 Cor 12. Read verse 12 and look for “The Christ”:https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/12.htm.

Right, there is no “The”, as Lee states.
The inter linear translation says “so also (is) Christ”, skipping “ho” because while it often is translated “which, what, or that”, none of those make any sense in English. “So also is which Christ”, “So also which Christ”, “so also is what Christ”, “so also what Christ, “so also is that Christ”, “so also that Christ”?
None of those translations make sense, so most English translations skip it, but also don’t add “The”, rather “is”: “So also is Christ”.
OK, so I’ve proved I’m not a Greek scholar.
The point is “The Christ” is an invention of Lee. So, let’s stop taking his word as “gospel”, and read scripture in various translations to “fact check”. When we do it just isn’t so.

[Ohio]

We used to hear so often from Lee and the Blendeds just how much our individual or private decisions affected "The Body," and how much the individual LC's affected "The Body."

These teachings were 99% self-serving and manipulative. We were both individually and collectively robbed of our right and our responsibility to follow Jesus, the Head of the body, directly without an intermediary. Thus Lee kept us in fear, into believing that offending "The Body" was far more serious than offending "The Head." Actually, by keeping us in fear of offending "The Body," he in reality kept us obeying him, thus usurping the rightful place of Jesus, our ascended Head.

As others have said, "Any teaching taken to the extreme, can beome a falsehood."

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

The point is “The Christ” is an invention of Lee...

The "Body-Christ" is a fabrication, getting us to kow-tow to "the ministry of the age", which was the vehicle for the interests of a minister, his immediate family, and his non-profit publishing house (plus associated for-profit subsidiaries [Phosphorous, Daystar &c]). The "Body-Christ" was a lever to manipulate the gullible.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Trapped

What about this verse: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Christ IS ALL and in all. How do we interpret "Christ is all" in this case then?

It's in reference to the diverse types of people. So it's saying Christ is the all-important thing among these different people, and which makes them one.

Don't get tangled up in the metaphysics of Christ being "all." What it means is he is far and away the most important thing.

[Sons to Glory!]

In saying Lee has gone too far, we run the risk of falling into the old “dirty bathwater = dirty baby” syndrome and perhaps run too far the other way. In rejecting the organic aspect of the church’s union with Christ (i.e., the church is Christ) we then run the risk of thinking of the church as a mere organization, which is way too far low a perspective.

It is impossible to make the argument that the church isn’t filled with the Spirit and life of Christ, because I can find many verses that say this. His purpose was to become one with us, and bring this oneness into the Father. The whole John 17 discourse is too high, wonderful and mysterious to say this isn’t an organic/life union!

Is Christ not in us? Did Saul not get the answer directly from the Lord that he was persecuting the Lord Himself when he attacked the believers? Are we not told in Ephesians that we are to be filled with all the fullness of God? Is the body a separate entity from the Head?

I welcome a dialogue if anyone wants to explore the myriad of verses that speak of this great mystery – Christ and the church. In doing so, I think we all may see that our vision of the church is far too low and shallow . . .

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

In saying Lee has gone too far, we run the risk of falling into the old “dirty bathwater = dirty baby” syndrome and perhaps run too far the other way. In rejecting the organic aspect of the church’s union with Christ (i.e., the church is Christ) we then run the risk of thinking of the church as a mere organization, which is way too far low a perspective.

It is impossible to make the argument that the church isn’t filled with the Spirit and life of Christ, because I can find many verses that say this. His purpose was to become one with us, and bring this oneness into the Father. The whole John 17 discourse is too high, wonderful and mysterious to say this isn’t an organic/life union!

Is Christ not in us? Did Saul not get the answer directly from the Lord that he was persecuting the Lord Himself when he attacked the believers? Are we not told in Ephesians that we are to be filled with all the fullness of God? Is the body a separate entity from the Head?

I welcome a dialogue if anyone wants to explore the myriad of verses that speak of this great mystery – Christ and the church. In doing so, I think we all may see that our vision of the church is far too low and shallow . . .

The body is not a separate (I would say separated is a good word here) entity from the head, but even given that, no one would say that the body IS the head, though. The body and the head are two separate things, not in that they are separated, but they are two distinct things that are not equal to each other or interchangeable.

I agree that there is a high, mysterious relationship going on between the Lord and His body, He wants to be in us and us in Him, but the very fact that one can be in the other means they aren't each other. To say the son is the father and the son is the spirit and the body is christ.....it leaves too much of a blurred stroganoff of entities that ends up being meaningless.

Just my opinion. Don't have time to get into verses at the moment.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

In saying Lee has gone too far, we run the risk of falling into the old “dirty bathwater = dirty baby” syndrome and perhaps run too far the other way. In rejecting the organic aspect of the church’s union with Christ (i.e., the church is Christ) we then run the risk of thinking of the church as a mere organization, which is way too far low a perspective.

It is impossible to make the argument that the church isn’t filled with the Spirit and life of Christ, because I can find many verses that say this. His purpose was to become one with us, and bring this oneness into the Father. The whole John 17 discourse is too high, wonderful and mysterious to say this isn’t an organic/life union!

Is Christ not in us? Did Saul not get the answer directly from the Lord that he was persecuting the Lord Himself when he attacked the believers? Are we not told in Ephesians that we are to be filled with all the fullness of God? Is the body a separate entity from the Head?

I welcome a dialogue if anyone wants to explore the myriad of verses that speak of this great mystery – Christ and the church. In doing so, I think we all may see that our vision of the church is far too low and shallow . . .

Of course we agree with what you wrote here. But Lee went a step further, discussing the "sense of the body, or the feeling of the body." This is dangerous, and 100% dirty bathwater. I'll explain.

When elders prayed and had leading from the Lord for their church, LSM would often overrule claiming that only they know, "the feeling of the body." Elders who insisted they were following the Head, were then marginalized and shamed from the podium. LSM would pull out some quote from Nee, "when there are differences of interpretation, someone is not holding the Head." Obviously that was not the Blendeds. LSM thus has powerful manipulative tactics to lord it over the LC's. Think "group-think."

Hence the endless talk about the "Body-Christ," which only the Blendeds could possibly know.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hence the endless talk about the "Body-Christ," which only the Blendeds could possibly know.

I've said it over and over. It's all about control. It's all about power. It's all about intimidation.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course we agree with what you wrote here. But Lee went a step further, discussing the "sense of the body, or the feeling of the body." This is dangerous, and 100% dirty bathwater. I'll explain.

When elders prayed and had leading from the Lord for their church, LSM would often overrule claiming that only they know, "the feeling of the body." Elders who insisted they were following the Head, were then marginalized and shamed from the podium. LSM would pull out some quote from Nee, "when there are differences of interpretation, someone is not holding the Head." Obviously that was not the Blendeds. LSM thus has powerful manipulative tactics to lord it over the LC's. Think "group-think."

Hence the endless talk about the "Body-Christ," which only the Blendeds could possibly know.

And this business, that you wrote about here, would be going too far, resulting in a weird tangent! Thanks for the clarification.

[Cal]

The problem with most LR teachings about the corporate Christian life is that they are based on fundamentally wrongheaded views of authority.

If you ever get that feeling that you are "doomed" because you must go along with the Church or Body and have no choice, rest assured this is not the Lord. The Church has no such ultimate authority.

If God himself is telling you to do something, you should do it. But if the Church or Body is, you have discretion of conscience. This by definition must be true, because only our conscience or spirit would tell us to go along with the Church, so it must also be respected when it has a problem with doing so. Therefore, personal discretion must always be valid.

Now, if what we are talking about is a practical issue that affects the rights of a particular Christian group--for example, if they tell you to not speak during certain parts of a meeting, or to not park your car in certain areas on their property--that's different. Certainly they are within their purview on those kinds of issues.

But if they are saying things like: don't participate on Internet sites that discuss our group in any negative fashion, or don't watch sports on TV, or don't leave our group or you'll leave God--all those kinds of things are way out of line.

Within these general parameters, we cooperate and feel the leading of the Spirit in corporate life--in churches, ministries and other Christian groups. But we always have ultimate discretion of conscience on any "Body" issues.

If the group you meet with does not feel that way, consider it a red flag that you should find other fellowship.

In general, besides common sense practical issues, Christian groups only have as much authority over us as we choose to give them. Ultimately, ANY authority they have over us is based on our VOLUNTARY decision to lend it to them, and which we can rescind at any time based solely on our conscience and personal leading from the Lord. Period.

Thus, most LR talk about things like "the feeling of the Body" are irrelevant and meaningless bloviating.

[Cal]

Again, ironically, no "recovery" of truth ever would have occurred if the Christians used to recover it had observed the LR principle of following "the feeling of the Body." By definition, recovery requires pushing against the status quo, going against the conventional wisdom, rocking the boat. So to call the Local Church Movement "the Recovery" is really a contradiction, and what should be to them an embarrassing hypocrisy.

As I've satirized in the MOTA comics, before Nee and Lee came along, "the recovery" was just God inspiring various people in various places to see more and more from the Bible. When Nee, and especially when Lee, came along, the idea was transmuted by them into a movement which they controlled. But in doing so it lost its ability to recover anything, because it totally squelches that which is essential to recovery, the freedom to disagree--to the extreme that they now can't even bring themselves to disagree with a dead man.

So "the Recovery" is not at all a valid name for the movement. It should more accurately be called "the Conformity."

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Quote from Lee’s ministry:
"Verse 12 says, "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 the Christ" (Gk.). In this verse Paul brings in the concept that Christ is the Body. You may be familiar with the fact that in verse 12 we see the Body-Christ, the corporate Christ, not the individual Christ. Yes, we are the corporate Christ. However, if we are dumb when we gather together in the meetings, Christ has no way to come forth. He cannot come forth when we are silent. But when we are spiritual, speaking and functioning in the meetings, Christ comes out. When you speak for Christ, Christ comes forth in your speaking. If we all speak forth Christ, then the corporate Christ, the Body-Christ, will come forth. This is Christ as the Body. In order to have the Body-Christ, we all need to speak."

As far I have a quick search on 1 Corinthians 12:12 and Acts 9:4 from some good commentaries. I know of no theologian or pastor who has used that interpretation before. I guess it's more on an Eastern Orthodox leaning.

by-Verse Commentary 1 Corinthians 12:12

[Awoken]

Originally Posted by Trapped

But other Bible commentaries on this verse say things like “Christ speaks of Himself as persecuted by Saul, because ‘in all the affliction of his people he is afflicted’ (Isaiah 63:9), and ‘whoso toucheth them, toucheth the apple of his eye’ (Zechariah 2:8).” This kind of explanation seems to me to provide one healthy degree of removal......kind of emphasizing how great the Lord’s love is for us that persecuting us is like persecuting Him, rather than, essentially, we = Christ.

Awesome observation. I think the years in the LC have definitely oriented us to a wrong view of "the Body". Here is another way of looking at it Biblically (I am not saying one way is wrong and the other right but just want to provide some food for thought). Biblically, husbands and wives are said to be owners of one each others' bodies -

1 Corinth 7:4
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.

Christ already yielded up His (human) body for our sake, and in that sense, we own it - and we even partake of it, when we break bread - spiritually. Maybe the way God is viewing "the Body" is not some kind of "organism" that is one with Him in a literal sense, in the same sense that a husband and wife are not "organically one" (a definite Lee-ism) in some kind of literal sense. Instead, they are said to be "one flesh" in the eyes of God. So likewise we then could spiritually be said to be God's "Body" in the same way that a wife's body is for her husband, while his body should be for her. They dwell together without losing their distinctions precisely because the distinctions are what make them a loving, appropriately-functioning family. If the husband/wife became some sort of weird amalgamation of a "husband-wife" then the distinctions would be lost and everyone in the family would lose their proper place.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Trapped

But other Bible commentaries on this verse say things like “Christ speaks of Himself as persecuted by Saul, because ‘in all the affliction of his people he is afflicted’ (Isaiah 63:9), and ‘whoso toucheth them, toucheth the apple of his eye’ (Zechariah 2:8).” This kind of explanation seems to me to provide one healthy degree of removal......kind of emphasizing how great the Lord’s love is for us that persecuting us is like persecuting Him, rather than, essentially, we = Christ.

Originally Posted by Awoken

Awesome observation. I think the years in the LC have definitely oriented us to a wrong view of "the Body". Here is another way of looking at it Biblically (I am not saying one way is wrong and the other right but just want to provide some food for thought). Biblically, husbands and wives are said to be owners of one each others' bodies -

1 Corinthians 7:4
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.

Christ already yielded up His (human) body for our sake, and in that sense, we own it - and we even partake of it, when we break bread - spiritually. Maybe the way God is viewing "the Body" is not some kind of "organism" that is one with Him in a literal sense, in the same sense that a husband and wife are not "organically one" (a definite Lee-ism) in some kind of literal sense. Instead, they are said to be "one flesh" in the eyes of God. So likewise we then could spiritually be said to be God's "Body" in the same way that a wife's body is for her husband, while his body should be for her. They dwell together without losing their distinctions precisely because the distinctions are what make them a loving, appropriately-functioning family. If the husband/wife became some sort of weird amalgamation of a "husband-wife" then the distinctions would be lost and everyone in the family would lose their proper place.

Awoken,

I read this post of yours a while back, but I don't think my brain gave it due credit at the time and somehow missed the connection you made. I just re-read it again and I think it's golden. A husband and wife are said to be a picture of Christ and the church, and you point out so well that the spouses are to treat the other as themself and that the wife and husbands bodies belong to the other. In this way, we, the body, are Christ's. It's not that we, the body, ARE Christ. But we are Christ's, and as such are the body OF Christ.....belonging to Him. Not Him, but belonging to Him. Which makes perfect sense because He purchased us with His blood, and we do belong to Him. "Body of Christ" can mean possession, not personal attribute of.

This has the potential to be a huge mind-shift for me if I get into scripture and this thought is backed up further by the Word. If anything, this is a very helpful interpretation at least.

I can already think of a few verses people might use in response, but I think they may be taking the "head/body" analogy too far and we end up far out in left field with "we = Christ".

Trapped