96 gregory p. fewster
head motif in colossians and ephesians will serve as the test-case in this
scenario. unsurprisingly, historical-critical perspectives have generated
a particular set of readings. for example, in his treatment of the body
motif as found in the entire Pauline corpus, gosnell yorke is explicit about
his historical tendencies and admits that he wishes to explore the motif
“chronologically.”22 as such, his exegetical treatment begins with 1 cor-
inthians and works successively through romans, colossians, and ephe-
sians. several other authors maintain a similar tactic.23 on the other hand,
michelle lee’s recent monograph on the stoic background of the meta-
phor reflects the tendency among many critics to seek out the “source” or
some sort of precedent to the body imagery.24 typical suggestions include
Paul’s own christology,25 corporate personality theory,26 an adaptation of
a gnostic anthropos myth,27 Pauline sacramental theology,28 the cruci-
fied body of christ,29 and stoic philosophical discourse,30 among others.
Both of these nuances (i.e., chronology and source) reveal a particular
hermeneutical bent. Paul, and particularly the Pauline use of the body
22 see gosnell l. o. r. yorke, The Church as the Body of Christ in the Pauline Corpus:
A Re-examination (lanham, md: university Press of america, 1991), 22. this is further
explicated by asserting the chronological priority of 1 corinthians (thus its primacy in his
study) and his quest to examine developments of and deviations from that theme.
23 see, for example, ernest Best, One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationship of the
Church to Christ in the Epistles of Saint Paul (london: sPcK, 1955), 83–159; Brian daines,
“Paul’s use of the analogy of the Body of christ: With special reference to 1 corinthians
12,” EvQ 50 (1978): 72–76.
24 see michelle V. lee, Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ (sntsms 137; cambridge:
cambridge university Press, 2006), 8–18, where she outlines standard conclusions regard-
ing this question as well as several approaches to answering it. cf. dunn, Theology of Paul,
549–52; James d. g. dunn, “ ‘the Body of christ’ in Paul,” in Wilkins and Paige (eds.),
Worship, Theology and Ministry in Paul, 153–60; John a. t. robinson, The Body: Studies in
Pauline Theology (sBt 5; london: scm, 1952), 55 for alternative discussions.
25 see g. J. c. marchant, “Body of christ,” EvQ 30.1 (1958): 8.
26 Historically, this has been a popular view. see especially Best, One Body in Christ,
22–23, 203–207; everett ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today
(grand rapids: eerdmans, 1996), 93–94; daines, “Body of christ,” 72; Peter t. o’Brien,
Colossians, Philemon (WBc 44; Waco, tX: Word, 1982), 50.
27 see ernst Käsemann, Perspectives on Paul (trans. margaret Kohl; the new testament
library; london: scm, 1971), 111–17; see also a. J. m. Wedderburn, “Body of christ and
related concepts in 1 corinthians,” SJT 24.1 (1971): 82–95.
28 see dunn, Theology of Paul, 550; dunn, “the Body of christ,” 156; cf. Wedderburn,
“Body of christ,” 76. minear seems to imply this understanding as well (Paul s. minear,
Images of the Church in the New Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 185).
29 see Wedderburn, “Body of christ,” 79; robinson, The Body.
30 lee’s monograph especially highlights this view, suggesting that not only did Paul
adapt the body image from stoic thought but that his mode of argumentation reflects
stoicism as well. see lee, Paul, the Stoics, and the Body, 24, 27–102; and J. christiaan Beker,
Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: fortress, 1980), 307.