Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 12:19
And if they were all one member, where [were] the body?
19. if they were all one member, where were the body? ] The Christian Church, as St Paul continually teaches, was a body; that is, an organism which contained a vast number and variety of parts, each one with its own special function. But if all had the same purpose and work, the body would cease to exist.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And if all were one member – If there were nothing but an eye, an ear, or a limb, there would be no body The idea which this seems intended to illustrate is, that if there was not variety of talent and endowment in the church, the church could not itself exist. If, for example, there were nothing but apostles, or prophets, or teachers; if there were none but those who spoke with tongues or could interpret them, the church could not exist. A variety of talents and attainments in their proper places is as useful as are the various members of the human body.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
The body is a whole consisting of many members, it could not therefore be a body if there were but only one member. Or how could the body perform the several actions necessary either for the being or the well-being of it, if it consisted but of one member?
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19. where were the bodywhich,by its very idea, “hath many members” (1Co 12:12;1Co 12:14), [ALFORD].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And if they were all one member,…. As all eye, or all ear, or all hand, or all foot:
where were the body? where would be the body? it would not be a body consisting of such proper and suitable members, as now it is: so if the community of the saints were either all ministers, or all hearers, c. there would be no body, consisting of different persons, to receive any benefit or usefulness from either the church of Christ would not be that uniform, useful, and consistent community it is.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
One member ( ). Paul applies the logic of verse 17 to any member of the body. The application to members of the church is obvious. It is particularly pertinent in the case of a “church boss.”
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And if they were all one member.” (ei de en ta panta en mellos) “If indeed all was one member.” A pile of hands, feet, ears, noses, and eyes, without unity of life, reflexes, and rhythm and intelligence and harmony would not and could not be functional or useful!
2) “Where were the body?” The body would not, could not exist, if carnal, covetous wills of each member were permitted to prevail, could it? or would it? Who shall try to “play God?” or question His will in constituting and directing service from each member of the human body or church body? Let him become a fool, or treat him as such, 1Co 3:18; 1Co 3:20.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
19. If all were one member He means, that God has not acted at random, or without good reason, in assigning different gifts to the members of the body; but because it was necessary that it should be so, for the preservation of the body; for if this symmetry were taken away, there would be utter confusion and derangement. Hence we ought to submit ourselves the more carefully to the providence of God, which has so suitably arranged everything for our common advantage. One member is taken here to mean a mass, that is all of one shape, and not distinguished by any variety; for if God were to fashion our body into a mass of this kind, it would be a useless heap. (758)
(758) “ Un amas de chair inutile;” — “A heap of useless flesh.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
19. One member All reduced to a monotonous sameness.
Body The entire organism would lose its power of operation.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And if they were all one member, where were the body?’
Indeed if all the members were exactly the same where would the body be? There would be no body, just a pile made up of quantities of one particular member, a pile of legs or a pile of eyes, and so on. The idea is ridiculous. No, all the differing members are required to make up the body, and all need differing gifts for the benefit of the body, and all are interdependent.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The need of all the members:
v. 19. And if they were all one member, where were the body?
v. 20. But now are they many members, yet but one body.
v. 21. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
v. 22. Nay, much more those members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary;
v. 23. and those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor, and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. The apostle develops his argument in every direction, showing here that a number, a variety, of members and organs is necessary for the organism of the body and also of the Church. He that would insist upon having all members the same would destroy the unity and thereby the organism of the body. This Paul affirms with grave seriousness: But now there are indeed many members, yet one body. No member of the body is able to perform all the functions which are within the sphere of the body, they are mutually interdependent; and only in this way does the body realize its object in the world.
That all the variously endowed members are needed by the body as a whole, and consequently are necessary to each other, cannot do their work properly without the assistance of each other, is next brought out. The eye cannot deny that the hand is indispensable to its service, if the entire body should do its work in the right way. And the same holds true of the relation of the feet to the head. The body, indeed, could live without feet, but the organism would be crippled. The more noble members have need of the less noble, if the system of the body is to carry on its functions for which it was designed and destined. Pride, therefore, is just as reprehensible in the Church as discontent.
The apostle has something to say to such superior members as look down with complacent self-conceit upon the supposedly inferior companions: Far rather must this be considered the situation: The weaker members of the body, as they may seem to be, are necessary; and those members of the body which seem to us to be more dishonorable, we put them about with more abundant honor, and our indecorous parts bring with them a more abundant seemliness. Some organs of the body are extremely weak and delicate, such as the heart, the eye, the ear; and yet their needfulness cannot be called into question. Other organs, those for instance, of the abdomen, are ignoble, though their function is in itself not unclean; but we provide ample clothing for them. Still other organs, those connected with the procreation of the species, have, on account of sin, been vested with the mantle of sin and indecency, although none could be more sacred in their God-given function; and so we hide them from sight, the purpose of clothes being to serve decorousness. Note: The deliberate suggesting of charms which are associated with the propagation of the species, as it is done in the indecent clothing of our day, is at variance not only with the command of God, but also with the natural decency which the conscience demands.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
1Co 12:19 f. If, on the contrary, the whole of the members , which make up the body, were one member , if they, instead of their variety, formed one undifferentiated member, where were the body ? In that case there would be no body existent, for its essential nature is just the combination of different organs, a new abductio ad absurdum .
But so (as 1Co 12:18 ) there are indeed many members, but one body . The antitheses in 1Co 12:18 ; 1Co 12:20 manifest, in contradistinction to the perverseness of vain longing after gifts not received, the necessity of the existing relation to the organic and harmonious subsistence and life of the church.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
Ver. 19. Where were the body? ] So the body political consisteth not of a physician and a physician (saith Aristotle), but of a physician and a husbandman, &c.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19. ] The same ‘reductio ad absurdum’ which has been made in the concrete twice in 1Co 12:17 , is now made in the abstract : if the whole were one member, where would be the body (which by its very idea : see 1Co 12:12 ; 1Co 12:14 )?
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 12:19-20 rehearse the doctrine of 1Co 12:12-14 , now vividly illustrated by 1Co 12:15 ff., viz ., that a manifold variety of organs is indispensable for the existence of the Church. First the principle is suggested by a rhetorical question, in the strain of 1Co 12:17 : “But if all were one member, where (were) the body? “Secondly, it is affirmed , with grave conclusiveness: “But as the case stands ( ) Many members, yet one body ”. , sums up the whole exposition in a concise epigram, which was perhaps already proverbial ( cf. 1Co 9:24 ). hardly needs to be supplied. cf. , for the thought, 1Co 10:17 , and notes on 1Co 12:12 ; 1Co 12:14 above.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 12:19-25
19If they were all one member, where would the body be? 20But now there are many members, but one body. 21And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; 23and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, 24 whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, 25so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
1Co 12:22-24 “weaker. . .less honorable. . .less presentable. . .that member which lacked” This may refer to those parts of the human body which are covered by clothing. This discussion reveals that some of the less obvious, less culturally desired, less “showy” gifts were still necessary for a healthy, happy body. God/Spirit gave the gifts, all gifts are needed, all gifts have honor. See SPECIAL TOPIC: WEAKNESS at 2Co 12:9.
“abundant honor” This term is in both 1Co 12:23-24. See Special Topic at 2Co 2:7.
1Co 12:25 This verse expresses Paul’s main point (i.e., a hina clause, purpose clause). The church is to be one, not divided. Believers are to care for one another (cf. 1Co 12:7), not do their own thing!
The verbs are subjunctive, which introduces a contingency. This is what they should do, but there is some doubt about their doing it.
The term “care” usually means anxiety or worry (cf. Mat 6:25; Mat 6:27; Mat 10:19; Mat 13:22; 2Co 11:28; Php 4:6). It can also express legitimate concern, as in this text and 1Co 7:32-34 and Php 2:20.
“divisions” This is the Greek term schisma, from which we get the English term schism and schismatic. Paul has mentioned these “divisions” before (cf. 1Co 1:10; 1Co 11:18). They are the basic problem in Corinth. The divisions were related to (1) certain leaders; (2) certain theological emphases; (3) Roman social standing; (4) magnification of certain gifts; or (5) residue of a pagan mind set.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
19.] The same reductio ad absurdum which has been made in the concrete twice in 1Co 12:17, is now made in the abstract: if the whole were one member, where would be the body (which by its very idea : see 1Co 12:12; 1Co 12:14)?
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 12:19
1Co 12:19
And if they were all one member, where were the body? -The different members, with their distinct functions and offices, are each needful to the completion of the body.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
1Co 12:14
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 12:19-21. And if they were all one member, etc. As in 1Co 12:15-16, the rebuke seems to be for envying the gifts of the more eminent, so here the rebuke is addressed to the more gifted for despising those of lesser giftsthe eye as compared with the hand, the head with the feet.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 19 expresses once more the idea of 1Co 12:17 : If God had acted otherwise, what would have become of the body? Instead of this admirable organism, we should have a being endowed with a single sense, as is found, for example, in the lowest grade of animalism.
Then 1Co 12:20 resumes the exposition of the actual fact, as God has willed it. The is the repetition of the of 1Co 12:18. God has not managed things so awkwardly. He has instituted a plurality of members, without however destroying the unity of the body.
The application is obvious at a glance: If the Spirit manifests Himself in certain members only in less extraordinary or less eminent forms than in others, it does not follow that they should put themselves outside the common life, and bury away their gift, like the wicked servant of the parable, who received only one talent.
The apostle now turns, on the other hand, to those who have received the most eminent gifts (1Co 12:21-26).
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
And if they were all one member, where were the body?
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
If all the members of the human body were the same, it would not be able to function as a body. It would be incapable of getting anything accomplished. For example, if all had the gift of tongues, the gift that the Corinthians valued so highly, the body would not function.