AndmU nivern'~S eminary Sf~~dicVs,o l. 44, No. 2,285-315. Copyright O 2006 Andrews University Press. BIBLICAL METAPHORS FOR THE CHURCH AND ADVENTIST ECCLESIOLOGY JOHN K. MCVAY Walla Walla College College Place, Washington The republication of Paul Ahear's classic treatment, Images ofhe Church in the New Testament, provides apt occasion to reconsider metaphors for the church and their appropriation today.' The purpose of this essay is threefold: to outline appropriate ways to analyze and understand NT metaphors for the church, to provide a fresh survey of the metaphors in the light of that methodology, and to reflect on how the biblical metaphors for the church should impact our thnking. "If the church is to recover the integrity of its life and mission, it must have adequate images to capture and inspire its imagination."* While I trust a wider audience d find the reflections useful, I am especially interested in the function of NT metaphors in Seventh-day Adventist understandings of the church. A Sum9 ofMetapborsfor the Cburch Minear catalogued ninety-six images of the church in the NT;3 then he sifted out thirty-two "minor images" (e.g., the salt of the earth, a letter from Christ) and grouped the remaining images under the rubrics "The People of God," "The New Creation," "The Fellowship in Faith," and 'The Body of Christ." Reproducing his list offers a helpful outline of NT metaphors for the ch~rch:~ 'Paul S. Minear, Images oftbe Church in the New Testament, foreword, Leander E. Keck (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004), xiii-xxvii. vohn Driver, Images ofthe Church in Mission (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1997), 21. 41bid., 268-269. I have adapted Minear's appendix, in which he outlines "Analogies Discussed in the Text." I have added the headings and biblical references, attempting to include those passages Minear specifically mentions where he believes the image/metaphor is or may be used. A question mark indicates that Minear expresses doubt as to whether the metaphor is actually present. Occasionally, too, he does not see a specific metaphor actually present, but still believes the language nonetheless provides "an important clue to the church's self-understanding" (a phrase he uses in treating the image "The Cup of the Lord," 39). I have included such references. It should be borne in mind that Minear is, in general, attempting to be representative, rather than exhaustive, in the citations he provides. I have listed references in canonical order rather than the order in which Minear discusses them and have retained his use of the abbreviation "f." Minor Images of the Church [26] the choice of clohg (Rom [I] the salt of the earth (Matt 5:13) 13:12,14; 1 Cor 1551-54; 2 Cor [2] a letter from Christ (2 Cor 3:2-3) 5:2-3; Gal 3:W; Eph 4:22-24; 6:ll f.; [3] fish and fish net (Matt 4:19; 13:47- Col3:9-11; 3:12f.; 1 Thess 5:5-8) 50; Mark 1:17; Luke 5:l-11; John [27l citizens (Gal 6: 10; Eph 2: 10; Phil 21:l-14) 3:20) [28] exiles (Web 11:13; 1 Pet [4] the boat (Matt 8:23-27?; 14:22-27?; 1:l; 2:11) Mark 4:1?; John 21:8?) [28] exiles (Heb 1l :U; 1 Pet 1:l; 211 ) [5] the ark (1 Pet 3:18-22) [29] the dispersion (Jas 1: I; 1 Pet 1:1 ) [6j unleavened bread (1 Cor 5:7) [30] ambassadors (2 Cor S:l8-21) P] one loaf (John 6; 1 Cor lO:l6-l7) [31] the poor (Luke 6:20?; Jas 2:2-6?) [8]t he table of the Lord (I Cor 10:21) 1321 hosts and guests (Matt 25:31-46) [9] the altar (1 Cor 9:13; Heb 13:15; Rev 6:9; 16:6-7) The People of God (101 the cup of the Lord (1 Cor 10:16, [33] the people of God (Rom 9:25-26; 21) 1 Pet 2:9-10) [I l] wine (Mark 2:27?; John 2:1-1 I?) [34] Israel (Gal 6:l6; Eph 2:10; Heb [I21 branches of the vine (john 15) 8:8-10; 11:25; Rev 2:14)~ [I 31 vineyard (Matt 21:28-41; Mark [35] a chosen race (1 Pet 29) 12:l-9; Luke 20:9-16; 1 Cor 9:7?) [36] a holy nation (1 Pet 2:9) [I41 the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14; Luke [37] twelve tribes (Matt 19:28; Jas 1:l; 13:6-9;J ohn 1:47) Rev 7:4) [I 51 the olive tree (Rom 11 : 1 3-23) [38] the patriarchs (Rom 158-10; [I61 God's planting (1 Cor 3:9) 1 Cor 10:l-10) [I71 God's building (1 Cor 3:9) [39] circumcision (Rom 225-29; Phil [I 81 building on the rock (Matt 16:1 8 - 3:3-11; Col 2:11-12) '9) [40] Abraham's sons (Rom 416; Gal (191 pillar and buttress (Col1:23; 1 3:29) Tim 3:5; Rev 3:12) [41] the exodus (passages that [20] virgms (Matt 25: 1- 1 3; Rev 14:1 - 4) demonstrate the belief that [21] the Messiah's mother (Rev 12:1 -2) "Christians were repeating the [22] the elect lady (2 John 1:l) communal experience of the exiles [23] the bride of Christ (John 3:29; 2 from Egypt," see, e.g., John 3:14; Cor 1l:lf.; Eph 5:22-31; Rev 21:2- Heb 11:23-29; 1 Cor 10:1-12)6 4; 22: 17) 1421 house of David (Acts 1516-18 [24] the wedding feast (Matt 22: 1-10 ; and implied in many passages Mark 2:19; Luke 12%; Rev 19:8-9) focused on the origins of Jesus) [25] wearers of white robes (Matt 22: 1- [43] remnant (Rom 9:27; 11:5-7) 14; Rev 19:7) 'It is worth noting that, in treating this image, Minear, 72, writes: "Paul did not fall back [in Gal 6:16] upon a concept of &o Israeli, the old and the new, or the false and the true. He defined God's Israel as one people. . . . So strong is this sense of solidarity that one must conclude that the continuity between the two Testaments is grounded in the fact that both tell the story of how the same God fulfills his covenant promises to the same people." 61bid., 78. BIBLICALM ETAPHORFSO R THE CHURCH.. . 287 [44] the elect (e.g., Luke 9:35; 23:35; [65] life (John 20:31; Col3:3; 1 Pet 3:7; John 1:34; 1 Cor 1:27; Eph 1:4; Rev 3:l) 1 Thess l:4; Jas 25; 2 Pet 1:lO) [66] the tree of life (Rev 27; 221 -5) [45] flock (Matt 26:31; Luke 28?; [67] communion in the Holy Spirit (2 l2:32; John 10, eps. v. 16; 21:15- Cor 13:1 4; passages mentioning 17; Acts 20:28-29; 1 Cor 9:7; Heb "one spirit") 13:20; 1 Pet 5:2-3). [68] the bond of love (linked to many [46] lambs who rule (Rev 226-27) "new creation" passages) [47] the Holy City (Gal 3; Heb 12; Rev 11) The Fellowship in Faith [48] the holy temple (1 Cor 3: 16-17 ; 1691 the sanctified (e.g., 1 Cor 1:2) Eph 218-22; 1 Pet 2:5) PO] the faithful (e.g., Col 1:2) [49] priesthood (1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6; fll] the justified (e.g., Rom 3:26) 5:lO) fl2] followers (Call narratives in the [SO] sacrifice (Hebrews) Gospels) P3] disciples (Call narratives in the 1511 aroma (2 Cor 2:15; Phil 4:l8; Rev Gospels) 58; 8:3) P4] road (Matt 7:13-14; Luke 13:23- [52] festivals (esp. Passover, Pentecost, 24; John 144-6; Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; and Sabbath) 22:4; 24: 14 ,22) P5] coming and going (Gospel of The New Creation John) [53] the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal [76] witnessing community (John 6:15-16; Jas 1:18) 15:26-27; 1 John 1:1 -4; 4:11-18; [54] &st fruits (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15; 5:19; Rev 6:')-11; 12:11, 17; 19:10) Jas 1: 1 8; cf. Rom 8:23; 11 : 1 6; fl7] confessors (see passages for 1 Cor 15:20-23) "witnessing community," just 1551 the new humanity (Col 3:10; Eph above) 4:22, 24) fl8] slaves (1 Cor 9:19; 2 Cor 4:s; Gal [56] the last Adam (Rom 512; 1 Cor 1:10; 5:l3; Eph 6:6) l5:21-22; Eph 2:14-15) fl9] friends (Luke 12:4;J ohn 11:11; [57] the Son of Man (John 151; Heb 15:15-20;2 0:2; 21:16; 3 John 15) 2: 6) [80] servants (Mark 9:35; l0:43; John [58] the Kingdom of God (Gospels) 12:25-26; 2 Cor 3; Eph 4; 1 Pet 1591 fighters against Satan (see images 4:10-11; Rev 2: 19) nos. 26 and 55) [81] "with. . ." (e.g., Rom 8:32; Col [60] Sabbath Rest (Mark 2:23-3:6; 3:3-4) Luke l3:6-21; John 5; Heb 4:l-11) [82] edification (1 Cor 8:1; Eph 2:21; [bl] the coming age (1 Cor l5:28; Heb 4:7-12, 16; 1 Pet 2:5) l2:28) [83] household of God (Heb 3:l-6; [62] God's glory (1 Thess 212; 2 Cor 8:l-13; 1 Pet 25-10; 4:17) 3:7-18) [84] sons of God (Matt 23:9-10; 1631 ltght (Matt 5:14; Luke 16:8; John John 1:12; 1152) 8:12; Acts 13:47; Eph 58; Phil [85] brotherhood (Matt 25:40; 215; 1 Thess 55; 1 Pet 29;R ev Mark 3:35; 10:29-30; 1 Pet 1: 20; 2: 1,5) 217; 5:9; 1 John 3:1-55) [64] the name (Matt 7:22; 18:s; Rev 3: 12 ) The Body of Christ [9l J head of cosmic spitits (Col2:9- [86] the body of life (Rom 5:8) 10)' [87] members of Christ (1 Cor 6:12- [92] head of the church (Col2:9-10, by 20) implication) 1881 the body and the blood (1 Cor [93] the body of this head (Col2: 11 , 10:16-17; 11:23-26) 18,23, passim) [89] the diversities of ministries (1 Cor [94] the unity of Jews and Gentiles 1212-27, in the setting of 1 Cor (Colossians) 12 -1 4; Rom 12) [95] the growth of the body (Col219) 1901 spiritual body (1 Cor 15) [96] the fullness of God (Ephesians) While Minear's taxonomy is helpful, a different organization is adopted here. I have emphasized those metaphors that are present both in the earlier and the later letters of Paul, the apostle's sustained interest suggesting they are worthy of close attention. I propose to treat here five clusters of biblical metaphors for the church: Corporal: The Church as Body Architectural: The Church as Building/Temple Agricultural: The Church as Plant/Field/Vineyard/Vine Martial: The Church as Army Familial and Marital: The Church as Family and as Bride In each case, I shall drscuss the (usually OT) background, survey the uses of the cluster in the NT, examine selected passages more closely in view of the method described below, and emphasize the contributions the cluster makes to a well-rounded and vibrant understandmg of the church. How to Anakyxe Metaphor~)r the Church Exegetes and theologians have sometimes operated with a dated set of presuppositions concerning metaphor, presuppositions that denigrate its use.' However, the metaphors of the Bible are surely to be regarded as inspired in the same way as the rest of it. So it is welcome news that some theorists offer an understanding of metaphor that comports well with its ubiquitous use in the Bible. In the place of dated presuppositions about "mere metaphor," a distilled set of concepts about metaphor provide a truer perspective. The first of these ideas is that metaphor i.r not mere adornment ofhng~ageI. t is not "a sort of happy trick with words" or "a grace or ornament added to the power of language." Instead, metaphor is "the omnipresent principle of language" since language '~nde aling with images 91-95, Minear, 203-220, focuses solely on the occurrence of them in Colossians, reserving the discussion of Ephesians until image 96. 'See the elaboration of this point in Ian Paul, "Metaphor and Exegesis," in AJer Pentecost: Language andBibhcalInterpretatione, d. Craig G. Bartholomew, Colin Greene, and Karl Moller, Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 389-390. BIBLICAMLE TAPHOFROSR THE CHURCH. .. 289 itself is metaphoric and metaphor simply illustrates the worhngs of human language and thought as a wh01e.~ Second, the meaning ofmetaphor cannot be adequateb or fulbparaphrased. In h s sense, metaphor-and especially poetic metaphor-is "irreducible." "The richer and more suggestive a metaphor is, the more impossible it is to spell out explicitly all the similarities that underlie it."" We should not be surprised that our explanations of biblical metaphors are not as convincing or durable as the metaphors themselves. Third, the commtlnicative impact of metaphor shot/M be appreciated (rather than depreciated). Too often in biblical studies and theology, statements regarded as "literally true" are set over against those thought to be "only metaphorically true." However, "to say that a statement is metaphorical is a comment on its manner of expression and not necessarily on the truth of that which is expressed." If we were to warn someone, "Watch out! That's a live wire!" we would not be inclined to add, "Of course, that is only metaphorically true." It is both true and expressed with metaphor.'' The fourth idea is closely related: Compbxand 'hmixed"metapborsa n, simibrh, to be acknowhdged and stded rather than overhoked and devalued. From a classical perspective, occurrences of metaphor should demonstrate harmony and congruity of metaphorical elements, as well as visual clarity. From such a perspective, some uses of metaphor within the Bible do not measure up and so are devalued or Qsmissed. A more enlightened view demonstrates willingness to explore biblical metaphor and appreciate its complexity. Against the customary prohibition, such a view suggests that in mixed metaphor "we understand the speaker's intention drrectly; hence mixed metaphor is a sin against eloquence rather than a sin against meaning."'2 With these four ideas clearly in mind, we may turn to some definitions and terms that will aid in disciplined analysis of biblical metaphors for the church.13 '1. A. Richards, The Phib.ropLy wetor-c( London: Oxford University Press, 1936),9 0, 92. While the idea that "ornament and style have no place in pure argumenty'i s often credited to Aristotle and Quintilian, that origin has been controverted by Janet M. Soskice, who argues instead that the real source of the idea "is to be found in those philosophers of the seventeenth century who chose as their model the arguments of mathematics and the new sciences" (Metaphor and Reb&ous Language [Oxford: Clarendon, 1985],12). '"William P. Alston, Philo~opyo fhnguage (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, l964), 100-10 1. See also Edmund P. Clowney, "Interpreting the Biblical Models of the Church: A Hermeneutical Deepening of Ecclesiology," in Bibbcal Intelpfetation and the Church: Text and Context, ed. D. A. Carson (Exeter: Paternoster, l984), 7 1. "Soskice, 70. See also George B. Caird, The Language and Imagety of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980), 131-132. 71. "SosLce, 'The Wikipedia articles on "Metaphor" and "Conceptual Metaphor" provide a helpful review of wider concepts of metaphor: Wikipedia contributors, "Metaphor" and "Conceptual Metaphor," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, How can we identify an occurrence of metaphor? Janet M. Soskice provides a helpful working definition: "Metaphor is thatfigun ofqeech whereby we qeak a h one thing in tern which an seen to be suggestive ofanother."14 Once we have identified such a case where, for instance, "the church" is spoken about in terms of a "temple," how can we identify the components of metaphor and ponder their interaction? I. A. Richards's terms "tenor" and "vehicle" have proved enduring ones to identify respectively "the underlying idea or principal subject which the vehicle or figure means" and the basic figure that is used to carry the "ten~r."'~R ichards illustrates these terms by referring to Shakespeare's phrase from OtheIh, "Steep'd me in poverty to the very lips," where he identifies the "tenor" as poverty and the "vehicle" as "the sea or vat in whch Othello is to be steeped."16 In adltion to being able to identify the "tenor" and "vehcle" of an instance of metaphor, two additional concepts help us evaluate the mechanics of metaphor: How f~Iiis the metaphor? Full metaphors explicitly reveal the following (using the temple metaphor of Eph 2:19-22 as an example): the tenor or object of the comparison (e.g., you, the church); the vehicle or image of the comparison (e.g., temple); and the "ground" of the comparison (e.g., God dwells in you, as a deity is thought to inhabit a temple). However, metaphors may be abbreviated, with one or two of these elements being implicit.I7 Also, to what extent is the metaphor guarded? Metaphors are "frequently guarded, so as to take advantage of their values without courting their dangers." Such guarding occurs when "the metaphor is hedged about with protective rules and auxiliary explanations" and so "becomes less rich in meaning, but safer."" Among the ways an author can guard a metaphor is to express it My, spelling out the tenor, vehicle, and ground of the comparison. To understand a metaphor, though, we need to do more than ponder its mechanics, the pieces of the metaphor. We also need to consider how those components interact to create meaning. How do the tenor and vehicle interact? And what meaning(s) does this interaction yield? Here, another term is helpful, <en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metaphor&oldid=47789471> and <en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conceptual~metaphor&oldid=4681 3884> (accessed March 19,2006). '4Soskice, 15. 15Richards, 96. It may be helpful to compare J. A. Cuddon's summary of Richards's terms: "By 'tenor' he meant the purport or general drift of thought regarding the subject of a metaphor; by 'vehicle', the image which embodies the tenor'' (A Dictionary offiteraty Tern andLiteraty Theory, 3d ed. [Cambridge: Blackwell, 19911,959). 16Richards,1 04-10 5. "I am adapting the concepts of Jan de Waard, "Biblical Metaphors and Their Translation," BT 25 (1974): 109-11 1. "Monroe C. Beardsley, "Metaphor," in Encychpeda ofPhifo~opbye, d. P. Edwards (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 286. BIBLICALM ETAPHORS FOR THE CHURCH.. . 291 that of "associated Imagme reading the metaphor, "Men are wolves." We would know that the writer is speaking about "men" in terms of "wolves." What "associated commonplaces" might the writer and hearers share about wolves? We could construct quite a list, including, for example, that wolves run in packs, are voracious hunters, and are wily and sly. The more we know about the "associated commonplaces" attached to the vehicle "wolves," the more likely we are to understand the metaphor and be able to analyze the context in order to know which of these "associated commonplaces" may be active there. A similar need confronts us as we interpret the Bible. We need to carefully consider the meaning of the metaphors within their literary and cultural contexts. "A given metaphor is capable of very diverse uses; the setting becomes as decisive for its meaning as the image taken by it~elf."~M" etaphors for the church "need to be understood in their formative settings, in their social and religious contexts of origin."*' Ellen White's exhortation applies here: Let us in imagination go back to that scene, and, as we sit with the disciples on the mountainside, enter into the thoughts and feelings that filled their hearts. Understanding what the words of Jesus meant to those who heard them, we may discern in them a new vividness and beauty, and may also gather for ourselves their deeper lessons.22 With the above concepts and terminology in view, a set of evaluative questions may be composed to structure the analysis of a given occurrence of biblical metaphor for the church: 1. Identtfication. Is a specific biblical statement about the church an example of metaphor? 2. Mechanics. Assuming the statement constitutes a metaphor, what are its "tenor" and "vehicle"? How full is it? In what ways is the metaphor guarded? 3. Interaction of Components. What "associated commonplaces" might have occurred to the author and the writer's audience? How many of these ideas does the context indicate are active? How do these "associated commonplaces" contribute to the understanding of the church? 4. Fmction. How does the metaphor function in this context? Why does the author employ it?23 191 borrow the term "associated commonplaces" from Max Black, ModeLr and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Phihsiphy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, l962), 40. Peter Cottrell and Max Turner use the term "presupposition pool" (Lingzkticr and Bibbd Intepntation powners Grove: InterVarsity, 19891,301). Peter W. Macky uses the more complex taxonomy of positive, negative, and neutral analogies (The Centrabty ofMetqbhors to BibbdThoughtA Methodfrlntepreting the Bibh, Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 19 @iwiston , NY: Mellen, 1990],104-105,251). 2"Minear,3 0. 2'Driver, 17. UEllen G. White, Thoughtsf mm the Mount ofBlessing (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1955), 1. 23This basic outline of metaphor analysis may be compared with benefit to the Five cluster^ gMetaphorsfor the Chmh Corporal: The Church as Body Of the clusters of metaphors employed to describe the church, the use of the human body is especially important because of the frequency of its use, the variety of ways it ise mployed and developed, and its theological importance. Of the clusters reviewed here, it is the only one that is not readily traced to the OT. While a variety of origins for the imagery have been proposed, it is difficult to imagine that Paul does not draw on the frequent Greco-Roman use of the body metaphor for the society or the state.24 The Greco-Roman use of the body metaphor seems to hark back to the fable credted to Aesop, "The Belly and the Feet" (and the more elaborate speeches, based on the fable, attributed to Menenius Agrippa): The belly and the feet were arguing about their importance, and when the feet kept saying that they were so much stronger that they even carried the stomach around, the stomach replied, "But, my good friends, if I didn't take in food, you wouldn't be able to carry anything."25 One ancient author, Seneca, uses the body metaphor with a similar range of meaning, as we find in the writings of Paul. He uses the metaphor in a cosmic sense to indicate the unity of the human and the divine (cf. Col1:lS-20; Eph 1:22-23; 5:23,30), to indicate the unity of the members of human society (cf. Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-27; Eph 2:16; 3:6; 4:4, 25), and to elucidate the relationship between the state as "body" and the emperor as "head" (cf. Col 1:18; 2:19; Eph 1:22-23; 4:ll-16; 5:23).26 In the earlier epistles, Paul employs "The Church is a Body"27t o describe more detailed pattern offered by Peter Macky in Centra&y ofMetaphors, with special attention to pp. 278-297. I should note that in this section of my essay, "How to Analyze Metaphors for the Church," I am summarizing the fast chapter, "Approaching Ecclesial Metaphor in the Epistle to the Ephesians," pp. 1-73, of my "Ecclesial Metaphor in the Epistle to the Ephesians from the Perspective of a Modern Theory of Metaphor" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sheffield, 1995). 24Gosnell L. 0. Yorke classifies theories of origin of the body metaphor into "Extra-New Testament" proposals (The Old Testament, RabbinicJ udaism, Gnosticism, Greco-Roman Philosophy, and the Corinthian Asclepion) and "Intra-New Testament" proposals (Paul's Christophanic Encounter, Paul's Eucharistic Christology, Nuptial Theology, or Theology of Baptism) (The Church as the Bob ofChfist in the Pauli'ne Coy~~s: A Re-Examinatian [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 19911, 1-7). "The translation is from Lloyd W. Daly, Aesop tvithout Morak The Famous Fables, and a Life ofAesop (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1961), 148. For the speeches of Menenius Agrippa, see Ruth Ilsley Hicks, "The Body Political and the Body Ecclesiastical," JBR 3 1 (1 963): 29-35. 26Form ore detailed discussion, see John K. McVay, "The Human Body as Social and Political Metaphor in Stoic Literature and Early Christian Writers," BASP 37 (2000): 135-147. 2 7 ~ad opt the standard of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in capitalizing a BIBLICAML ETAPHORFSO R THE CHURCH.. . 293 the church in 1 Corinthans (10:17; 11:29; 12:12-27) and Romans (12:4-5). The fust two uses in 1 Corinthians (10:17; 11:29) are in the context of a discussion of the Lord's Supper. Issuing a warning against partaking of the "cup" and "table" of demons (1 Cor 10:l-22, esp. w. 14-22), Paul writes, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body (adpa) of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body (adpa), for we all partake of the one loaf' (w. 16-17, NIV)." The use of a6pa in 1 Cor 11:29 is debated. Is it eucharistic (failing to distinguish sacramental from common food), Christological ("he fails to dtstinguish the Lord's body in the bread which he eats"), or ecclesial in the sense of failing "to discern and to give due weight to the church, assembled at the Supper as the body of Christ"?29I n favor of the ecclesial understanding, it may be noted that Paul has defined that sense of "one body" at 10:17 and the use here seems to point back to it. "Most likely the term 'body,' . . . deliberately recalls Paul's interpretation of the bread in 10:17, thus indicating that the concern is with the problem in Corinth itself, of the rich abusing the poor."30 These two uses (or only one if 1 Cor 11:29 is dtscounted) point to a profound unity among believers, one rooted in God's action in Christ. Sacramental participation in the body of Christ through the "one loaf' and Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper joins believers together as "one body." 1 Corinthians 12: 12-27 and Romans 12:4-5 The uses of the body metaphor in 1 Cor 12:12-27 and Rom 12:4-5 are quite similar. In both cases, the body metaphor is offered in the context of a f f b g the smooth function and appropriate valuation of spiritual gifts. Romans 12:4-5 functions nicely as a summary: "Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." summary statement of metaphors as a way of identifyrng them clearly (Metaphors We Live By, 4 [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 20031,243-276). 28Unlesso therwise noted, quotations from the Bible are drawn from the NIV. *". K. Barrett, A Commentay on the Fir& Episth to the Corinthians, 2d ed., BNTC (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1971), 274. Barrett argues that the reference is best viewed as Christological, based on "the parallelism between verses 27 and 29" and the use of a6pa as a "shorthand form" of the earlier phrase, "the body and blood of the Lord." Ivan Blazen, too, believes the reference to be Christological, but artfully melds the Christological and ecclesial views: "Better examine yourselves then, admonishes Paul, for when you celebrate the Lord's Supper 'without discerning the body,' the presence of Christ whose body was broken for us that He might forge us into His body, the church, you bring the judgment of weakness, illness, and even death upon yourself (1 1:29,30)" (The GoJpelon the Street: Paul's Fitst Letter to the Con'nthMm FJampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1997],90). 30Gordon D. Fee, The First Ewe to the Con'nthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, l987), 563. The accent here is on the need for healthy relationships among church members, where due respect is given to the diversity of gifts in the context of treasuring every member, especially those who are "weaker" or "less honorable" or "respectable" (1 Cor 12:22-23). At ths point, it is helpful to introduce an additional term used in the study of metaphor: submetaphors. Submetaphors are related to the overall metaphor as parts to the whole. So, in 1 Cor 12:12-27, the various "members" @63cq) or body parts may be identified as submetaphors of the wider body metaphor: foot, hand, ear, eye, head, weaker parts, less honorable parts, unpresentable parts, presentable parts. While these are not supplied with direct referents, so that these submetaphors are not fully expressed, there is an implied and general identity with various g~ftlsi sted in w. 28-31. Much as in the fable of Aesop, the function of the metaphor is to highhght the interdependence of church members who have been arranged in the ecclesial body just as God intended (1 Cor 12:18). Ideally, when this interdependence is realized and actualized, there will be "no division in the body," but, instead, the various parts d "have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it" (1 Cor 12:25-26). Ephesians 4: 1- 16 Ephesians 4:l-16 represents the most detailed use of the body metaphor in the later writings of Paul. In a way reminiscent of Rom 12, where a call to unity is followed by a discussion of the role of spiritual gifts in advancing it, the passage focuses on the role of the "gifts" (66paza, v. 8) as they relate to the theme of unity. It is instructive to compare the use of the body metaphor in Eph 4 with the earlier one in 1 Cor 12. In both passages, the body metaphor is employed in relation to a discussion of spiritual gifts. In 1 Cor 12, while God arranges the gfts in the body (w. 18,24,28), it is the Spirit who gives the gifts (w. 4-1 1). In Ephesians, the grfts are given by the triumphant Christ (Eph 4:8, 11). In 1 Cor 12, there is a greater variety listed of both spiritual gifts and body parts (foot, hand, ear, eye, head), though none of the gifts is identified with a specific body part. In Eph 4, referents are provided for a shorter list of body parts. Christ is the "head,"(~~+ahivl,. 15). By way of contrast, in 1 Cor 12 the head was not distinguished as a particularly significant body part, ministers of the word (v. 11) are ''l~garnents'(~dl +q [s.], v. 16);' and other church members are "parts" (Clipoi, v. 16). "The emphasis here is on the gift of the ministry of the Church.'y32In Ephesians, Paul is anxious to assert that "the function of the "I follow the technical sense of the term defended by BDAG 155; J. Arrnitage Robinson, St. PmPs Episth to the EphesMns, 2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1904), 186; J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, eds., Gnek-Engbsh Lckcon of the New Testament: Bmd on Semantic Domains, 2d ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989),1.101-102;H . Balz, G. Schneider, eds., Exegetical Didionug ofthe New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, 1. I 81). 32R.N ewton Flew, Jesus and His Church: A Study ofthe Idea ofthe Ecchsia in the New