1 Corinthians 12:15

1Co 12:15. Ἐὰν, 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.—ποὺς, 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.—οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ, I am not of) supply, therefore, from the following clause.

1Co 12:15-16. Οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος) Μὴ in interrogation expects a negative answer, as 1Co 12:29, μὴ πάντες ἀπόστολοι; [are all apostles, surely not?] but οὐκ interrogative affirms, as ch. 1Co 14:23, οὐκ ἐροῦσιν; [will they not say?] Therefore the question, whereby some read [as Engl. Vers, etc.], οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος; is it not therefore of the body? perverts the sense [Beng. reads it without interrogation]. Οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ possesses a double, not a simple power of negation, as Act 4:20, οὐ δυνάμεθα μὴ λαλεῖν, 2Th 3:9, οὐχ ὅτι οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξονσίαν [not that we have not power]. If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, l am not of the body: this saying of the foot is blandly contradicted: Thou art not therefore not of the body, thou dost not therefore cease to be of the body. The phraseology of Theophilus of Antioch is very like this: οὐ παρὰ τὸ μὴ βλέπειν τοὺς τυφλοὺς, ἤδη καὶ οὐκ ἔστι τὸ φῶς τοῦ ἡλίου φαῖνον, it does not follow, that, because the blind do not see, now therefore also the light of the sun does not appear, lib. ad Autol., c. 3; and in this passage παρὰ denotes on account of as Deu 23:4. Orige[111], c. Cels., p. 385, Οὐ ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦΤΟ Οὐ ΜΟΙΧΕΎΟΥΣΙ, They do not for this cause cease to commit adultery. Chrysostom, οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἐν τοῖς δυσχερέσι κοινωνοῦντες, ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ΧΡΗΣΤΟΤΈΡΟΙς Οὐ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΉΣΕΤΕ, if you do not now partake of what is unpleasant, you will not partake of what is better, on 2Co 1:7.

[111] rigen (born about 186 A.D., died 253 A.D., a Greek father: two-thirds of the N. Test. are quoted in his writings). Ed. Vinc. Delarue, Paris. 1733, 1740, 1759.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 . οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος , “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: οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο κ . τ . λ . 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 μὴ instead of οὐ “is it for this reason not of the body?” For παρὰ 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 ( ἐὰν εἴπῃ κ . τ . λ .) leaves it where it was. Gd [1907] , Ed [1908] , and others, less aptly refer τοῦτο not to the saying of the foot, etc., but to the fact that it is not hand, etc. For double οὐ , cf. 2Th 3:9 .

[1884] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1885] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[1886] Winer-Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).

[1887] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[1888] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[1889] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklärung 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] Alford’s Greek Testament .

[1899] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. Ép. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[1900] accusative case.

[1901] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[1902] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklärung 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. Ép. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[1908] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Vv. 15-17. “If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it not, in spite of that, of the body? 16. If the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it not, in spite of that, of the body? 17. If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?”

The foot and the ear speak here as less conspicuous and favoured members than the hand and the eye, which represent the most highly valued gifts.

Many take the last proposition of 1Co 12:15-16 as an affirmation in the form of two negatives which destroy one another: “It does not come about, therefore, that the foot is not of the body.” But it is more natural to regard it, with Erasmus, Calvin, de Wette, etc., as a question in the sense of a reductio ad absurdum. The doubling of the negative οὐ is caused by the παρὰ τοῦτο, in spite of that: “Is it not in spite thereof...is it not of the body?”

The meaning ordinarily given to παρά is because of (see Meyer, Edwards). But I do not think that this meaning occurs elsewhere in the New Testament. Why not understand simply: passing alongside of that, that is to say: in spite of that; comp. Rom 1:26; Rom 11:24. Meyer, Hofmann, and others understand by τοῦτο, that, the erroneous affirmation of the foot and the ear: “What these members say wrongly does not prevent them from being of the body.” But it is more natural to refer it to the fact itself of the inferiority of the foot and the ear. “In spite of this inferiority, are not these members really of the body?” Comp. Holsten.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_12:15, 1Co_12:16

If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

The first and most obvious conclusion from the view which Paul had given of the nature of the church is the duty of contentment. It is just as unreasonable and absurd for the foot to complain that it is not the hand, as for one member of the church to complain that he is not another; that is, for a teacher to complain that he is not an apostle; or for a deaconess to complain that she is not a presbyter; or for one who had the gift of healing to complain that he had not the gift of tongues. This, as the apostle shows, would destroy the very idea of the church.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now he buildeth his doctrine upon the foundations which he had laid: and first of all he continueth in his purposed similitude, and afterward he goeth to the matter barely and simply. And first of all he speaketh unto them which would have separated themselves from those whom they envied, because they had not such excellent gifts as they: now this is, saith he, 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 the other.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

The humbler members ought not to disparage themselves, or to be disparaged by others more noble (Co1 12:21-22).

foot . . . hand--The humble speaks of the more honorable member which most nearly resembles itself: so the "ear" of the "eye" (the nobler and more commanding member, Num 10:31), (Co1 12:16). As in life each compares himself with those whom he approaches nearest in gifts, not those far superior. The foot and hand represent men of active life; the ear and eye, those of contemplative life.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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, so as to lead one that occupies an inferior station to grudge to afford his services to those above him.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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, ordain’d 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.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

If the foot, &c. By this comparison St. Paul teaches the Corinthians, that as all cannot exercise the same functions in the Church, so no one should be envious of his brother; but that by their mutual charity, co-operation, union of hearts, and faith, they should compose one body, of which Christ is the head. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If the foot shall say, etc. So Seneca says, "What if the hands should wish to injure the feet, or the eyes the hands? As all the members agree together because it is the interest of the whole that each should be kept safe, so men spare their fellow men because we are born for heaven, and society cannot be saved except by the love and protection of its elements" ("De Ira," 2:31). And Marcus Aurelius: "We have been born for mutual help, like the feet, like the hands, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. To act in opposition to cue another is therefore contrary to nature" ("Enchir.," 2:1). And Pope

What if the foot, ordained the dust to tread, Or hand, to toil, aspired to be the head? What if the head, the eye, or ear repined To serve mere engines to the ruling mind? Just as absurd for any part to claim To be another, in this general frame," etc.

Vers. 15, 16.

Contentment is better than envy.

Where party spirit is rife, as it was in the Corinthian Church, there is always danger of hatred, envying, and jealousy. The rebuke to these dispositions, administered by the apostle, is founded upon the deepest principles of Christianity. The Church is not a club which each member joins for his own advantage and convenience, but a body in which each member is incorporated for mutual cooperation in common subjection to the Divine Head.

I THERE MUST NEEDS BE, IN RELIGIOUS AS IN CIVIL SOCIETY, DIFFERENT POSITIONS CORRESPONDING TO VARYING GIFTS AND SERVICES. As the body needs all its members, they must occupy their appointed positions for which they are severally fitted and to which they are severally called. It is so in the Church of God; and, according to the office filled, the duties performed, will be the position occupied in the regard and esteem of men.

II THOSE IN INFERIOR POSITIONS SHOULD REMEMBER THAT INFERIORITY IN THE VIEW OF MEN IS NOT NECESSARILY SUCH IN THE SIGHT OF GOD. That there is a scale of excellence cannot be questioned, but that God"s graduation agrees with man"s is not to be for a moment supposed. He judgeth not as man judgeth. Not always do those who fill most space in men"s eyes stand first in the view of God.

III AN ENVIOUS SPIRIT IS PRODUCTIVE OF THE UTMOST MISERY TO HIM WHO CHERISHES IT. All painters and poets who have dealt with the subject have agreed in depicting envy as consumed and tortured with wretchedness. The envious man cannot enjoy his own blessings or exercise his own powers, for the sight or thought of what he deems the choicer blessings or the rarer powers of his neighbour.

IV ON THE OTHER HAND, A CONTENTED SPIRIT IS PRODUCTIVE OF TRUE HAPPINESS. When "the sun of sweet content" has risen in the eyes, the light is upon every feature. A holy and calm conviction that his lot is ordered by Divine wisdom gives a deep peace, an abiding cheerfulness, to a good man"s life. If one were to have regard only to his own happiness, he would do well to beware of discontent.

V IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT AN APPARENTLY LOWLY SERVICE MAY BE IMPORTANT AND EVEN ESSENTIAL. The foot has not so complex a structure, has not the same adaptation to a varied service, as the hand; yet, with no power of locomotion, the man would be crippled and pitiable, notwithstanding the marvellous manual mechanism of which he is master. The ear does not afford the same range of knowledge, perhaps not the same gradation of pleasure, as the eye; but the man who loses hearing is shut out from many of the joys and very much of the information which this life affords. And in the Church of Christ, what work has been done by the lowly, the feeble, the illiterate! and in how many cases do they put to shame the gifted and the eminent!

VI IF THE TRUST BE SMALLER, THE RESPONSIBILITY WILL BE LESS. Instead of looking up to the great, the learned, the eloquent, and sighing because we have not their gifts, let us be grateful that we have not their account to render. To whom much is given, of him will much be required. T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The foot is elegantly introduced as speaking of the hand; the ear, of the eye; each, of a part that has some resemblance to it. So among men each is apt to compare himself with those whose gifts some way resemble his own, rather than with those who are at a distance, either above or beneath him. Is it therefore not of the body - Is the inference good? Perhaps the foot may represent private Christians; the hand, officers in the church; the eye, teachers; the ear, hearers.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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 .

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15. ἐκ τοῦ σώματος. ἐκ has either here (1) the ordinary meaning of proceeding from, or (2) it has the more unusual sense of belonging to. See Winer, Gr. Gram. § 47. Donaldson, Gr. Gram. p. 507, cites in favour of (2) Soph. Trach. 734 ἐκ τριῶν ἕν ἂν εἱλόμην (where ἐκ has the sense of a part of). Jelf, Gr. Gram. § 621, cites Luk 2:4; Act 10:45; Rom 4:16.

οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο. It is not for this reason not of the body. The best Editors do not punctuate this as a question. We have here an instance of a double negative, one portion of which corrects the other. See Act 4:20.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15.] The ὅτι is rightly rendered in E. V. because.

οὐ παρὰ τ. κ.τ.λ.] 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.

παρά, see reff.

ἐκ τ. σ., belonging to the body as an aggregate; so εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα,—ἧσαν ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων. 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).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15. ‘If the foot should say, Because I am not hand, I am not of the body, it is not on’ account of this (discontented grumbling) not of the body.’ The παρὰ τοῦτο (‘all along of this,’ 4 Mac. 10:19) refers to the pettish argument of the foot, rather than to the fact of its not being a hand. In each case it is the inferior limb which grumbles, the hand being of more value than the foot, and the eye than the ear. And 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; οὐ τοῖς σφόδρα ὑπερέχουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὀλίγον ἀναβεβηκόσι. For εἰμὶ ἐκ, ‘belong to,’ and so ‘dependent on,’ see Joh 4:22; and for the double negative, 2Th 3:9. Bengel compares Theoph. Ant. (ad Autol. 3); οὐ παρὰ τὸ μὴ βλέπειν τοὺς τυφλοὺς ἤδη καὶ οὐκ ἔστι τὸ φῶς τοῦ ἡλίου φαῖνον: and Origen (con. Cels. vii. 63); οὐ διὰ τοῦτο οὐ μοιχεύουσιν. Some would take οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο in vv. 15, 16 interrogatively, as in the A V. But this would require μή.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.