1 Corinthians 12:19

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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ( νῦν δέ ) Many members, yet one body ”. Πολλὰ μέλη , ἓν δὲ σῶμα sums up the whole exposition in a concise epigram, which was perhaps already proverbial ( cf. 1Co 9:24 ). ἐστὶν hardly needs to be supplied. cf. , for the thought, 1Co 10:17 , and notes on 1Co 12:12 ; 1Co 12:14 above.

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

1Co_12:19, 1Co_12:20

And if they were all one member, where (were) the body? But now (are they) many members, yet but one body.

These verses are a repetition of the idea that diversity of organs in the body is essential to its nature as a body, i.e. as an organization; and that this diversity is perfectly consistent with unity.

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

where were the body--which, by its very idea, "hath many members" (Co1 12:12, Co1 12:14), [ALFORD].

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

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.

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.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

19. One member—All reduced to a monotonous sameness.

Body—The entire organism would lose its power of operation.

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

And if they were all one member, where were the body? The interests of the individual must never overshadow those of the Church. In the Church, as in the body, the hypertrophy or the atrophy of any one member is injurious, not only to itself, but to the whole.

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

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And if they were all one member, where were 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.

19. εἰ δὲ ἦν τὰ πάντα ἓν μέλος. 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.

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.

19.] The same ‘reductio ad absurdum’ which has been made in the concrete twice in ver. 17, is now made in the abstract: if the whole were one member, where would be the body (which by its very idea μέλη ἔχει πολλά: see vv. 12, 14)?

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

19. ‘Now, if they all (τὰ πάντα) were one member, where were the body?’ This is the second absurdity: the first was ‘where were the other members?’ The very idea of body implies many members, and if all the members tried to have the honour of the highest member, the body would be lost. Quanta ergo insania erit, si membrum unum, potius quam alteri cedat, in suum et corporis interitum conspiret (Calv.). See Pope, Essay on Man, i. 259 f., “What if the foot,” etc.

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

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 νῦν δέ is the repetition of the νυνὶ δέ 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).

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.