The Body Politic vs. The Body of Christ:
Re-reading Paul through Union rather than Homonoia
Yung Suk Kim
The distinction between "unity" and "union" is more than a semantic nuance; it signifies a fundamental difference in political, social, and theological paradigms. While often used interchangeably, "union" refers to the act of joining or the state of being joined – a connection of distinct entities, often external, structural, or contractual. "Unity," conversely, denotes the state of being one, functioning as a single entity, or existing in harmony – a quality of oneness, often internal, spiritual, or emotional. The critical difference lies between the state of being (unity) and the act of joining (union), and between their implications for hierarchy and individual agency within each.
To better understand this relationship, one can conceptualize "oneness" along a spectrum:
To better understand this relationship, one can conceptualize "oneness" along a spectrum:
Type A: Organic/Voluntary Unity: This signifies a genuine harmony arising spontaneously from shared values and mutual respect. It cannot be forced and respects individual differences while finding common ground. It embodies the ideal state of collective well-being.
Type B: Structural Union: This describes a pragmatic "contract" where distinct entities agree to work together. It implies a system (laws, agreements) that binds them, allowing for pluralism and maintaining individual identities within a shared framework.
Type C: Hegemonic Unity: This represents a coercive imposition of a single will upon the many. It often disguises itself as Type A, but functions as a prison, claiming "We are one" to prevent dissent and enforce conformity.
This spectrum is particularly vital when examining the Pauline metaphor of the "Body of Christ" (soma christou) found in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12. For much of its interpretive history, this metaphor has been understood through the lens of "unity," specifically the Greek concept of homonoia. Homonoia, often translated as concord, unanimity, or like-mindedness, was a cherished ideal in the Hellenistic world and particularly in the Roman Empire. It represented political and social cohesion, in which citizens were expected to align their wills and purposes for the good of the state. Within the Roman context, this often manifested as a rigid, hierarchical organism—a Type C Hegemonic Unity—where the "head" (Emperor, elite) guided the "limbs" (lower classes). Disagreement, dissent, or deviation from the established order was seen as a threat to this homonoia, jeopardizing the health and stability of the whole. This form of unity was frequently a tool of control, demanding conformity and assimilation, and framing resistance as a "disease" within the body politic. Indeed, the suspicion often directed at the rhetoric of unity is justified, as it can function as a "Trojan horse" for obedience.
However, a significant body of scholarship, including works such as Christ’s Body in Corinth and A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters, offers a powerful and necessary corrective. By interpreting Paul’s body metaphor primarily through the lens of Structural Union (Type B) – a deliberate gathering of distinct members – and further asserting that this Union is animated by the Organic/Voluntary Unity (Type A) of shared faith and mutual care, this scholarship unlocks a radically different understanding of the early Christian community. This perspective directly subverts and rescues Paul from the anachronistic imposition of Roman imperial or Stoic hierarchical ideology (Type C), revealing a vision grounded not in coerced conformity, but in covenantal participation.
In this re-reading, the soma christou is not a monolithic entity enforcing homonoia (Type C), but rather a dynamic Union (Type B) of diverse individuals striving for Organic/Voluntary Unity (Type A). The "members" of the Corinthian community, gathered together, are not being subsumed into a singular, undifferentiated whole, nor are they being locked into a fixed caste system. Instead, they are entering into a profound relational bond. The "binding glue" for this Union is not the authoritarian decree of an earthly power or the erasure of cultural or social difference, but rather "Jesus's faith, love, and care." This central commitment facilitates a "spirit of mutual care," fostering the spontaneous harmony characteristic of Type A Unity, where differences are not erased but acknowledged and integrated within a shared purpose.
This shift in interpretation illuminates several critical aspects of Pauline theology:
1. The Dignity of Difference over Uniformity:
This spectrum is particularly vital when examining the Pauline metaphor of the "Body of Christ" (soma christou) found in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12. For much of its interpretive history, this metaphor has been understood through the lens of "unity," specifically the Greek concept of homonoia. Homonoia, often translated as concord, unanimity, or like-mindedness, was a cherished ideal in the Hellenistic world and particularly in the Roman Empire. It represented political and social cohesion, in which citizens were expected to align their wills and purposes for the good of the state. Within the Roman context, this often manifested as a rigid, hierarchical organism—a Type C Hegemonic Unity—where the "head" (Emperor, elite) guided the "limbs" (lower classes). Disagreement, dissent, or deviation from the established order was seen as a threat to this homonoia, jeopardizing the health and stability of the whole. This form of unity was frequently a tool of control, demanding conformity and assimilation, and framing resistance as a "disease" within the body politic. Indeed, the suspicion often directed at the rhetoric of unity is justified, as it can function as a "Trojan horse" for obedience.
However, a significant body of scholarship, including works such as Christ’s Body in Corinth and A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters, offers a powerful and necessary corrective. By interpreting Paul’s body metaphor primarily through the lens of Structural Union (Type B) – a deliberate gathering of distinct members – and further asserting that this Union is animated by the Organic/Voluntary Unity (Type A) of shared faith and mutual care, this scholarship unlocks a radically different understanding of the early Christian community. This perspective directly subverts and rescues Paul from the anachronistic imposition of Roman imperial or Stoic hierarchical ideology (Type C), revealing a vision grounded not in coerced conformity, but in covenantal participation.
In this re-reading, the soma christou is not a monolithic entity enforcing homonoia (Type C), but rather a dynamic Union (Type B) of diverse individuals striving for Organic/Voluntary Unity (Type A). The "members" of the Corinthian community, gathered together, are not being subsumed into a singular, undifferentiated whole, nor are they being locked into a fixed caste system. Instead, they are entering into a profound relational bond. The "binding glue" for this Union is not the authoritarian decree of an earthly power or the erasure of cultural or social difference, but rather "Jesus's faith, love, and care." This central commitment facilitates a "spirit of mutual care," fostering the spontaneous harmony characteristic of Type A Unity, where differences are not erased but acknowledged and integrated within a shared purpose.
This shift in interpretation illuminates several critical aspects of Pauline theology:
1. The Dignity of Difference over Uniformity:
The Roman ideal of homonoia (Type C Hegemonic Unity) often demanded uniformity as a precondition for unity; difference was a potential threat. In contrast, the "Union" model (Type B), animated by the desire for Type A Unity, celebrates difference as foundational. Paul’s intricate discussion in 1 Corinthians 12, where "the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you'" (1 Cor 12:21), moves beyond mere functional utility. It becomes a testament to the inherent value and indispensable nature of each distinct part. This is not a call for assimilation, but for mutual recognition and interdependence among those who retain their unique identities. The "Union" protects and elevates its distinctiveness, allowing varied gifts and roles to flourish within a framework that fosters spontaneous harmony. This profoundly subverts the imperial demand for every subject to conform to a dominant cultural or social norm. In Christ’s Union, social distinctions like "Jew or Greek, slave or free" (Gal 3:28) do not vanish, but their hierarchical power within the community is dismantled, as all are equally "in Christ."
2. Love and Care as the Constitutive Element, not Coerced Consensus:
2. Love and Care as the Constitutive Element, not Coerced Consensus:
The homonoia of the Roman world, while idealizing unanimity, often achieved it through the enforcement of hierarchical roles and the suppression of dissent (Type C). Paul's vision of the Body as a Union, however, is premised on radically different terms. His sharp critique of the wealthy in Corinth for shaming the poor during the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11) is not an appeal for abstract "unity," but a demand for tangible acts of love and mutual care. A true Christian Union cannot tolerate injustice and humiliation among its members. The "spirit of mutual care" is not a byproduct of unity; it is the very essence that defines and validates the Union itself, creating the conditions for Type A Organic/Voluntary Unity. If the Union fails to embody Jesus’s love and care, it ceases to be the Body of Christ and risks becoming merely another social gathering susceptible to worldly power dynamics.
3. Christ's Faith as the Unifying Covenant, not Human Authority:
3. Christ's Faith as the Unifying Covenant, not Human Authority:
In systems demanding homonoia (Type C), allegiance is typically owed to the earthly power that establishes and maintains the order. The stability of such systems rests on human authority and control. In the Pauline Union (Type B) aspiring to Type A Unity, however, the ultimate "binding glue" is "Jesus's work and his faith." The members are united not by their common submission to an earthly hierarchy, but by their shared participation in Christ’s salvific act. This flattens hierarchical structures within the community, as ultimate allegiance is directed towards Christ alone. This is reflected in Paul's emphasis on imitation, where he instructs followers to imitate him only "as I imitate Christ" (1 Cor 4:16, 11:1). The authority resides not in Paul, but in the Christ he proclaims, thereby establishing a Union centered on a divine covenant rather than human coercion.
Conclusion:
Conclusion:
The danger of "unity," particularly when it echoes the demands of homonoia (Type C Hegemonic Unity), is its potential to serve as a rhetoric for control, demanding conformity and silencing difference for the sake of an idealized, often hierarchical, order. When a leader or institution calls for unity, the critical question becomes: "Unity on whose terms?" If unity means "you must accept your place in the hierarchy for the good of the system," it is oppression, embodying the Roman/Stoic trap. By re-reading the soma christou as a Union (Type B) that actively strives for Organic/Voluntary Unity (Type A), we recover the radical counter-cultural ethos of the early Christian communities. It was a gathering of diverse individuals, brought into covenantal relationship not by imperial fiat or the erasure of their distinct identities, but by shared faith, love, and care emanating from Jesus Christ. This is not a unity of coerced sameness, but a union of profound and respected difference, where the "weaker" members are honored and sustained, fundamentally subverting the prevailing Roman political philosophy. In political philosophy, this is often why pluralism—the ability to live with disagreement—is championed over unity that demands the erasing of disagreement. A "Union" that respects pluralism and fosters voluntary harmony is thus often safer for the individual and more genuinely communal than a "Unity" that demands total conformity.
NOTES:
See my publications about this topic of the body of Christ:
- Christ's Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor (Fortress, 2008).
- A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters: Exploring a Threefold Theology of Paul (Cascade, 2011).
- How to Read Paul: A Brief Introduction to His Theology, Writings, and World (Fortress, 2021).
- Toward Decentering the New Testament (Cascade, 2018).
- “Reclaiming Christ’s Body (soma christou): Embodiment of God’s Gospel in Paul’s Letters,” Interpretation 67.1 (2013): 20-29.
- “‘Imitators’ (Mimetai) in 1 Cor. 4:16 and 11:1: A New Reading of Threefold Embodiment,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 33.2 (2011): 147-170.
- “Ethnicity and Race: Union with the Body of Christ,” in New Testament Ethics: Revisiting The Moral Vision of the New Testament, edited by Cherryl Hunt, Nicholas J. Moore, and Timothy J. Murray, 241-255 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Apr 2026 forthcoming).
