Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 12:15
If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
If the foot shall say … – The same figure and illustration which Paul here uses occurs also in pagan writers. It occurs in the apologue which was used by Menenius Agrippa, as related by Livy (lib. 2: cap. 32), in which he attempted to repress a rebellion which had been excited against the nobles and senators, as useless and cumbersome to the state. Menenius, in order to show the folly of this, represents the different members of the body as conspiring against the stomach, as being inactive, and as refusing to labor, and consuming everything. The consequence of the conspiracy which the feet, and hands, and mouth entered into, was a universal wasting away of the whole frame for lack of the nutriment which would have been supplied from the stomach. Thus, he argued it would be by the conspiracy against the nobles, as being inactive, and as consuming all things. The representation had the desired effect, and quelled the rebellion. The same figure is used also by Aesop. The idea here is, that as the foot and the ear could not pretend that they were not parts of the body, and even not important, because they were not the eye, etc.; that is, were not more honorable parts of the body; so no Christian, however humble his endowments, could pretend that he was useless because he was not more highly gifted and did not occupy a more elevated rank.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 15. If the foot shall say, c.] As all the members of the body are necessarily dependent on each other, and minister to the general support of the system, so is it in the Church. All the private members are intimately connected among themselves, and also with their pastors without which union no Church can subsist.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
It should seem by these expressions, that one great cause of those divisions, which the apostle had charged the church of Corinth with, was their difference in gifts, administrations, and operations; which was to that degree, that either those who were higher in gifts and administrations, and more famous for their miraculous operations, despised and vilified those that were inferior to them; or those who were lower in gifts, or in their stations in the church, or their power to work miracles, would not own themselves members of the church at Corinth, because they were in those low and inferior orders and degrees. The apostle argueth the unreasonableness of this, by a further comparing of the natural with the spiritual mystical body, the church, and showeth, it was altogether as unreasonable for men to disclaim the church, and their relation to it, because they had not the most eminent gifts, or were not in the most eminent places and offices, as for the foot to say, it was not of the body, because it was not the hand; or for the ear to say, it was not of the body, because it was not the eye.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15. The humbler members oughtnot to disparage themselves, or to be disparaged by others more noble(1Co 12:21; 1Co 12:22).
foot . . . handThehumble speaks of the more honorable member which most nearlyresembles itself: so the “ear” of the “eye” (thenobler and more commanding member, Nu10:31), (1Co 12:16). As inlife each compares himself with those whom he approaches nearest ingifts, not those far superior. The foot and handrepresent men of active life; the ear and eye, those ofcontemplative life.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
If the foot shall say,…. The lowest member of the body, which is nearest the earth, treads upon it, sustains the whole weight of the body, and performs the more drudging and fatiguing exercises of standing and walking; and may represent one that is in the lowest station in the church, a doorkeeper in the house of God; one that is really the least of saints, as well as thinks himself so; and has the smallest degree of heavenly affection, and knowledge of spiritual light and understanding;
because I am not the hand; the instrument of communication and of action; and may signify such an one, that liberally imparts to the necessities of others, who has it both in his hand and heart, and is ready to communicate; one that is full of good works, of charity towards men, and piety towards God; who does all things, Christ strengthening him, natural, civil, moral, and evangelical; yea, even miracles and mighty deeds are done by his hand:
I am not of the body; have no part in it, am no member of it, do not belong to it:
is it therefore not of the body? or “it is not therefore not of the body”, as the Syriac version renders it; that is, it is not “for this word”, as the Arabic, or so saying, as the Ethiopic, not of the body; it nevertheless belongs to it, and is a member of it, nor can it be otherwise: thus the meanest person in the mystical body, the church, though he should say, that because he is not so handy and useful as another, cannot give so largely, nor do so much as another, therefore he is no proper member of the church; it does not follow that so it is, for Christ, the head of the church, regards such as members; he admires the “beauty” of his church’s “feet”, and has provided for the covering, ornament, and security of them, being himself clothed with “a garment down to the feet”, which equally covers and adorns that part of the body as the rest; he does not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax, or despise the day of small things; he regards their prayers, and takes notice and accepts of their meanest services; and they are, and should be considered as members of the body, by the rest and by themselves, the mystical body, the church, though he should say, that because he is not so handy and useful as another, cannot give so largely, nor do so much as another, therefore he is no proper member of the church; it does not follow that so it is, for Christ, the head of the church, regards such as members; he admires the “beauty” of his church’s “feet”, and has provided for the covering, ornament, and security of them, being himself clothed with “a garment down to the feet”, which equally covers and adorns that part of the body as the rest; he does not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax, or despise the day of small things; he regards their prayers, and takes notice and accepts of their meanest services; and they are, and should be considered as members of the body, by the rest and by themselves.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
If the foot shall say ( ). Condition of third class ( and second aorist subjunctive ). In case the foot say.
I am not of the body ( ). I am independent of the body, not dependent on the body.
It is not therefore not of the body ( ). Thinking or saying so does not change the fact. here means “alongside of this” (cf. IV Macc. 10:19) and so “because of,” a rare use (Robertson, Grammar, p. 616). The two negatives (—) do not here destroy one another. Each retains its full force.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “If the foot shall say,” (ean eipe ho pous) “if the foot says or should say.” This is Paul’s use of the hypothetical contingency, or supposition, of reductio-ad-absurdum, reducing to an absurdity, any complaint of inferiority or non-importance of spiritual gifts.
2) “Because I am not the hand,” (hoti ouk eimi cheir) “Because I am not a hand.” What would a footless body be? The answer, a weakened, less perfect, complete, and useless body.
3) “I am not of the body;” (ouk eimi ek tou somatos) “I am not of, (a part of) or important to the body.”
4) “is it therefore not of the body?” Does a false premise establish a truth? Certainly not! And for a foot of a physical body or a member of a church body to object that it or he is not a member of the body doesn’t make the erroneous assumption or affirmation a truth. This is Paul’s logical, practical, testamentary reply to the selfish, covetous church members who would complain, feet sorry for themselves, because their spiritual gift did not seem as spectacular as that of another.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
15. This is a bringing out still farther ( ἐπεξεργασία ) of the preceding statement, or in other words, an exposition of it, with some amplification, with the view of placing in a clearer light, what he had previously stated in a few words. Now all this accords with the apologue of Menenius Agrippa. “Should a dissension break out in the body, so that the feet would refuse to discharge their office to the rest of the body, and the belly in like manner, and the eyes, and the hands, what would be the effect? Would not the result be — the destruction of the whole body?” At the same time Paul here insists more particularly on this one point — that each member ought to rest satisfied with its own place and station, and not envy the others, for he institutes a comparison between the more distinguished members, and those that have less dignity. For the eye has a more honorable place in the body than the hand, and the hand than the foot But if our hands were, from a feeling of envy, to refuse to discharge their office, would nature endure this? Would the hand be listened to, when wishing to be separated from the body?
To be not of the body, means here — to have no communication with the other members, but to live for itself, and to seek only its own advantage. “Would it then,” says Paul, “be allowable for the hand to refuse to do its office to the other members, on the ground of its bearing envy to the eyes?” These things are said of the natural body, but they must be applied to the members of the Church, lest ambition or misdirected emulation and envy should be the occasion of bad feeling among us, (754) so as to lead one that occupies an inferior station to grudge to afford his services to those above him.
(754) “ Nous face restraindre et espargner les vns enuers les autres;” — “Make us restrict and spare ourselves — one towards another.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(15) Is it therefore not of the body?Better, It is not on that account not of the body; and so omit the note of interrogation in the subsequent passages of these verses also. The illustration is almost the same as that contained in Livy, ii. 32, the fable of the revolt of the limbs against the belly. Pope, in his Essay on Man (9), employs the same idea thus:
What if the foot, ordaind the dust to tread,
Or hand, to toil, aspired to be the head?
What if the head, the eye, or ear declined
To serve mere engines to the ruling mind?
Just as absurd for any part to claim
To be another in this general frame:
Just as absurd to mourn the fate or pains
The great directing MIND OF ALL ordains.
All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body Nature is, and God the soul.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15. No one must think he does not belong to the Church because he is a supporter, and not an executive, of the Church; any more than a foot shall claim that it is not of the body because it is not the hand.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 12:15. Is it therefore not of the body? It is not for that reason no part of the body. Bengelius and Wetstein.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
Ver. 15. If the foot should say, &c. ] Inferiors must not envy those above them, but be content, since it is God that cutteth us out several conditions; and a scavenger may honour God in his place, as well as a minister in his.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
15. ] The is rightly rendered in E. V. because .
. . . .] These words [may be taken, here and in the next verse, “ it is not therefore not of the body .” But they] are best taken as a question, appealing to the sense of the reader: they thus have more of the vigour of the Apostle’s style.
, see reff.
. ., belonging to the body as an aggregate; so , . The double negation strengthens, see Winer, edn. 6, 55. 9 b (he takes the two, in this case , as destroying one another (?), see ib. a).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 12:15-16 represent with lively fancy the foot and ear in turn organs of activity and intelligence as disclaiming their part in the body, because they have not the powers of the hand and eye : an image of jealous or discouraged Cor [1884] Christians, emulous of the shining gifts of their fellows. In each case it is the lowlier but kindred organ that desponds, pars de parte quam simillima loquens (Bg [1885] ): cf. 1Co 12:21 . , “I am not of the body” not a mere partitive expression; it signifies dependence (pendens ab: cf . Gal 3:10 , Tit 1:10 , etc.; Wr [1886] , p. 461), hence derived status or character . Paul contradicts, in identical terms, the self-disparagement of the two chagrined members: . . . must be read as a statement “it is not therefore not of the body” (R.V., Bg [1887] , Mr [1888] , Hn [1889] , Hf [1890] , Ed [1891] , El [1892] , Bt [1893] , Sm [1894] ); not a question (A.V., Cv [1895] , Bz [1896] , Est., D.W [1897] , Al [1898] , Gd [1899] ), which would require instead of “is it for this reason not of the body?” For with acc [1900] of reason (along of this) , see parls.: “in accordance with this,” viz ., the disclaimer just made (so Mr [1901] , Hn [1902] , Hf [1903] , Ev [1904] , El [1905] , Er [1906] deplorans sortem suam ). The foot or ear does not sever itself from the body by distinguishing itself from hand or eye; its pettish argument ( . . .) leaves it where it was. Gd [1907] , Ed [1908] , and others, less aptly refer not to the saying of the foot, etc., but to the fact that it is not hand, etc. For double , cf. 2Th 3:9 .
[1884] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[1885] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
[1886]
[1887] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
[1888]
[1889] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).
[1890] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).
[1891] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[1892] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[1893] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).
[1894] P. Schmiedel, in Handcommentar zum N.T. (1893).
[1895] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .
[1896] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).
[1897].W. De Wette’s Handbuch z. N. T.
[1898]
[1899] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[1900] accusative case.
[1901] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
[1902] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).
[1903] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).
[1904] T. S. Evans in Speaker’s Commentary .
[1905] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[1906] Erasmus’ In N.T. Annotationes .
[1907] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[1908] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
If. App-118.
the = a.
of. App-104.
therefore = on account of (Greek. para. App-104.) this.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
15.] The is rightly rendered in E. V. because.
. …] These words [may be taken, here and in the next verse, it is not therefore not of the body. But they] are best taken as a question, appealing to the sense of the reader: they thus have more of the vigour of the Apostles style.
, see reff.
. ., belonging to the body as an aggregate; so ,- . The double negation strengthens,-see Winer, edn. 6, 55. 9 b (he takes the two, in this case, as destroying one another (?), see ib. a).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 12:15. , if) The more ignoble members ought not to be vilified by themselves, 1Co 12:15-16, nor can they be neglected by the more noble, 1Co 12:21-22.-, the foot) The foot is elegantly introduced speaking of the hand, the ear, speaking of the eye, the part speaking of the part that most resembles itself. For so among men, every one usually compares himself with those, to whom in gifts he bears the greatest resemblance, rather than with those, who are far superior, or far inferior. Thomas Aquinas says: Men devoted to active life are distinguished by the members, that serve the purposes of motion; those who are devoted to a contemplative life are distinguished by the members that serve the purposes of the intellectual powers. He is therefore of opinion, that the feet are kept in subjection; that the hands occupy a more dignified position; that the eyes are the teachers; that the ears are the learners.- , I am not of) supply, therefore, from the following clause.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 12:15
1Co 12:15
If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body.-There seems to have been some strife between the spiritually endowed as to the standing of each. Some seemed to contend that because they did not have certain of the more important gifts, they were not essential to the body. He corrects this by saying that each of the members of the human body constitutes an important part of it.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Jdg 9:8-15, 2Ki 14:9
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 12:15-17. This imaginary conversation between the different parts of the fleshly body, is written to show the point stated in verse 14. No one of the members of the body can take the place of the other. This reasoning drawn from the fleshly body is continued through verse 26.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 12:15. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?[1]
[1] Some excellent critics read this and the following questions affirmatively”it is not therefore not of the body. Winer and Buttmann hold that the interrogative sense is against the usage of the Greek language with two such negatives . Bengel was the first to affirm this, and he was followed by Billroth, Rckert, Hofmann, and Meyer, while Lachmann and Tischendorf print their Greek text affirmatively. The grammatical principle is undoubtedly correct; but since very much depends in such cases on how the statement is concerned by the writer, we incline to think that the real sense is conveyed quite as correctly by the interrogative form as by the affirmative. And if legitimate at all, there can be little doubt that it is most accordant with the lively style and strain of the argument; and so Judge the majority of the best criticsErasmus, Beza, Griesbach, De Wette, Osiander, Alford. Stanley, while in his notes he leaves the choice to the reader, renders it interrogatively in his translation.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vers. 15-26.
The object of this exposition is manifest. The Corinthians were disposed to exaggerate the value of certain gifts, which, from their extraordinary character, were fitted to strike the senses, in particular of the gift of speaking in tongues. From this prejudice there followed two evils: On the one hand, those who did not possess such gifts kept aloof discontented and discouraged, and the Church was deprived of their services, which might have been very needful; on the other, those who possessed the gifts, took pleasure in displaying them in the assemblies, so as to prevent the less brilliant gifts from filling the place which should have been reserved for them. It is to these two defects that the apostle successively applies the figure of the part played by the members in the human body; to the former, in the passage 15-17; to the latter, in the passage 18-26. Though the application of all the figures to spiritual gifts is transparent, it is nevertheless true that everything the apostle says has already literal verity in relation to the members of the human body.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
12:15 {10} If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
(10) Now he builds his doctrine upon the foundations which he has laid: and first of all he continues in his purposed similitude, and afterward he goes to the matter plainly and simply. And first of all he speaks unto those who would have separated themselves from those whom they envied, because they had not such excellent gifts as they. Now this is, he says, as if the foot should say it were not of the body, because it is not the hand, or the ear, because it is not the eye. Therefore all parts ought rather to defend the unity of the body, being coupled together to serve one another.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The application of the figure 12:15-26
Paul proceeded to spell out the implications of his analogy.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Perhaps Paul chose the feet, hands, ears, and eyes as examples because of their prominence in the body. Even though they are prominent and important they cannot stand alone. They need each other.
". . . Chrysostom remarks that the foot contrasts itself with the hand rather than with the ear, because we do not envy those who are very much higher than ourselves so much as those who have got a little above us . . ." [Note: Robertson and Plummer, p. 273.]