Friday, January 16, 2009

The Body of Christ

Today my history prof noted that he grew up in a very diverse religious environment. His father was a Navy chaplain, and he went to services on base that included Catholics, Jews, and Protestants.

This reminded me of an idea that I read last summer in T.F. Torrance's The Mediation of Christ. He contends that the body of Christ is intended to be made up of Jews and Gentiles, all as God's chosen people. Torrance went further to show that the Jews are represented by the scapegoat that is cast out of the community on the Day of Atonement, and that the followers of Jesus are represented by the sin offering offered on that day (since Jesus was sacrificed). Torrance believes that the body of Christ is not truly complete until there is reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles. This idea is borne out in Ephesians where Paul says, "His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility" (TNIV).

I love the language of "one new humanity out of the two." While I'm not completely sold on Torrance's idea yet, it's very intriguing. It sure sounds like Jesus's activity makes the way for Jews and Gentiles to be reconciled to God and each other . . . and not only that, but actually becoming one! A new unified humanity is to be created from hostile groups by the peace brought by Jesus. Calling back my professor's experience, I find it ironic that it takes the American military machine to bring about a manifestation of unity in the body of Christ. No other people of the Book can tolerate worshipping together, but those who are engaged in the dubious mission of peace by way of bloodshed in defense of the god America can. Fascinating.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

It's interesting that the author mentions that when one of the tenets of "fundamentalists" is that if you do not accept Christ, you are damned-- and they would by and large say the same about Jews.

However, is this a "one way or the other" type argument? Or is it possible for both points of view to hold water at the same time?

John said...

Say it another way for me; I don't quite understand the question.