Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Unity-That-Requires-Diversity--A-Brie 👈

1. A Unity that Requires Diversity
A Brief Exegetical Overview of 1 Corinthians 12:12-31
Devin Hayward Dunn
ST 7704: Interdisciplinary Theology Seminar
February 1, 2018

2. 1
Contents
Polished / Interpretive Translation of 1 Corinthians 12:12-31....................................................... 2
Exegetical Idea ............................................................................................................................... 2
Exegetical Outline .......................................................................................................................... 2
Commentary ................................................................................................................................... 4
Appendix 1: Clausal Diagram ...................................................................................................... 10
Appendix 2: Statement on Reading ............................................................................................. 12
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 13

3. 2
Polished / Interpretive Translation of 1 Corinthians 12:12-31
12
Καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶµα ἕν ἐστιν καὶ µέλη πολλὰ ἔχει, πάντα δὲ τὰ µέλη τοῦ σώµατος πολλὰ
ὄντα ἕν ἐστιν σῶµα, οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστός· 13
καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύµατι ἡµεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶµα
ἐβαπτίσθηµεν, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες, εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι, καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦµα
ἐποτίσθηµεν. 14
Καὶ γὰρ τὸ σῶµα οὐκ ἔστιν ἓν µέλος ἀλλὰ πολλά. 15
ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ πούς· Ὅτι οὐκ
εἰµὶ χείρ, οὐκ εἰµὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος; 16
καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ τὸ
οὖς· Ὅτι οὐκ εἰµὶ ὀφθαλµός, οὐκ εἰµὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ
σώµατος· 17
εἰ ὅλον τὸ σῶµα ὀφθαλµός, ποῦ ἡ ἀκοή; εἰ ὅλον ἀκοή, ποῦ ἡ ὄσφρησις; 18
νυνὶ δὲ ὁ
θεὸς ἔθετο τὰ µέλη, ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, ἐν τῷ σώµατι καθὼς ἠθέλησεν. 19
εἰ δὲ ἦν τὰ πάντα ἓν
µέλος, ποῦ τὸ σῶµα; 20
νῦν δὲ πολλὰ µὲν µέλη, ἓν δὲ σῶµα. 21
οὐ δύναται δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλµὸς εἰπεῖν
τῇ χειρί· Χρείαν σου οὐκ ἔχω, ἢ πάλιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῖς ποσίν· Χρείαν ὑµῶν οὐκ ἔχω· 22
ἀλλὰ
πολλῷ µᾶλλον τὰ δοκοῦντα µέλη τοῦ σώµατος ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν ἀναγκαῖά ἐστιν, 23
καὶ ἃ
δοκοῦµεν ἀτιµότερα εἶναι τοῦ σώµατος, τούτοις τιµὴν περισσοτέραν περιτίθεµεν, καὶ τὰ
ἀσχήµονα ἡµῶν εὐσχηµοσύνην περισσοτέραν ἔχει, 24
τὰ δὲ εὐσχήµονα ἡµῶν οὐ χρείαν ἔχει.
ἀλλὰ ὁ θεὸς συνεκέρασεν τὸ σῶµα, τῷ ὑστεροῦντι περισσοτέραν δοὺς τιµήν, 25
ἵνα µὴ ᾖ σχίσµα
ἐν τῷ σώµατι, ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων µεριµνῶσι τὰ µέλη. 26
καὶ εἴτε πάσχει ἓν µέλος,
συµπάσχει πάντα τὰ µέλη· εἴτε δοξάζεται µέλος, συγχαίρει πάντα τὰ µέλη. 27
Ὑµεῖς δέ ἐστε
σῶµα Χριστοῦ καὶ µέλη ἐκ µέρους. 28
καὶ οὓς µὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον
ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους, ἔπειτα δυνάµεις, ἔπειτα χαρίσµατα
ἰαµάτων, ἀντιλήµψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν. 29
µὴ πάντες ἀπόστολοι; µὴ πάντες
προφῆται; µὴ πάντες διδάσκαλοι; µὴ πάντες δυνάµεις; 30
µὴ πάντες χαρίσµατα ἔχουσιν ἰαµάτων;
µὴ πάντες γλώσσαις λαλοῦσιν; µὴ πάντες διερµηνεύουσιν; 31
ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ χαρίσµατα τὰ
µείζονα. καὶ ἔτι καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν ὁδὸν ὑµῖν δείκνυµι.1
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body,
though many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For also in one Spirit we are all baptized into
one body --weather Jews or Greeks, weather slaves or free people-- are all made to drink of one
Spirit.
14 For indeed, the body is not one member, but many. 15 For if the foot should say,
“because I am not a hand, am I not of the body?” not because the (foot) is any less a part of the
body. 16 And if the ear should say, “because I am not an eye, am I not of the body?” not because
the (ear) is any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the
hearing be? If the whole body were for hearing, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it
is God placed the members, each one of them, in the body just as he wanted. 19 But if all were to
be a single member, where would the body be? 20 Now though many members, there is only one
body. 21 Now, the eye can’t say to the hand, “I have no need for you.” Or again the head to the
foot, “I have no need for you.” 22 But much more necessary are the seemingly weaker members
of the body 23 and to those parts of the body we think dishonorable, those we clothe with
abundant honor, and our parts we hide with shame we treat with great dignity, 24 which our
more presentable parts do not need require, because indeed, God has so composed the body,
giving abundant honor to those lacking it, 25 in order that there may be no division in the body,
that the members would have the same concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the
1
M. W. Holmes, The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition, (Lexham Press; Society of Biblical Literature,
2013).

4. 3
members suffer together; if one member is honored, all members rejoice together with it.
27 Now all of you together are the body of Christ, and individually members of it. 28
And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, then prophets, then teachers, then powerful
deeds, then gifts of healing, helpful deeds, organizational gifts, and then different types of
tongues. 29 Not all are apostles! Not all are prophets! Not all are teachers! Not all work miracles!
30 Not all have the gift of healing! Not all speak in tongues! Not all interpret! 31 But you should
be eager for the greater kinds of gifts, and I will show you a way that is even more excellent.
Exegetical Idea
By using the imagery of the human body, Paul defends the model for the unity of the in-Christ
community by emphasizing the continuation of diverse social identities and the obliteration of
human conceived hierarchies.

5. 4
Thesis
The first letter to the Corinthian church is of great exegetical importance. As opposed to
other New Testament depictions of an ideal early church, Paul discusses and challenges issues
coming out of a diverse culture and worldview.2
Because of the unique practical issues discussed
in the first-century Corinthian church, scholars have taken differing approaches in their
exhortation to deal with modern issues. For a desire of Christian unity, some have mistakenly
allowed modern culture’s view of sin to inform their exegetical method in a way that is
irresponsible and unhelpful.3
Others have been extremely conservative in their interpretation but
have missed the relevance and significance for the contemporary church. Either way, while
Western culture has found itself caught up in heated discussions of racial diversity, gender
identity, and equality, there is no doubt that 1 Corinthians holds contemporary relevance for the
church today. The goal of this paper is threefold: 1) To carefully consider the grammar and
syntax of the original text and offer a fresh translation of 1 Corinthians 12:12-31. 2) To bring
forth the historical context of the author, letter, and the recipient and gain insight from how the
early church interpreted the text. 3) And finally, to offer application for the contemporary
church. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul shifts his attention from how the church relates to the world, to
how it relates to one another. In 12:12-31, he uses the metaphor of the body, and challenges
misconceptions among individuals about how unity in the Christ should function. I want to
suggest that within Paul’s correction, he defends the genetic makeup of the church body, which
requires people to conform to Christ through the Spirit, while thriving in their God given
uniqueness, giving equal honor to each other, and pursuing the excellent way of love.
A Christ Defined Body Made of Many
In the first of the two letters to the Corinthian church, Paul was responding to accounts
about the church’s situation from both oral reports from “members of Chloe’s household” and a
letter delivered by three official leaders in the church.4
From this information, Paul found himself
deeply concerned with the state of the church, which was drifting far from the applications and
implications shaped by the gospel in which he started it on. In this first letter, he answers
questions and gives doctrinal and practical correction, focusing primarily on the church’s
disunity.5
Specifically in chapter 12, he is answering questions related to matters of spiritual
gifts. In 12:7, Paul suggests that the Spirit is given, not for the benefit of the individual, but for
the benefit of all and for the unity of the church.6
Paul develops his second point from his statement made in 12:7 by introducing a
metaphor of the human body with the comparative conjunction καθάπερ.7
With this adverbial
2
James D.G. Dunn, New Testament Guides: 1 Corinthians, (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 9.
3
Kathryn R. Reinhard, “Conscience, Interdependence, and Embodied Difference: What Paul’s Ecclesial
Principles Can Offer the Contemporary Church,” Anglican Theological Review 94, no. 3 (Summer 2012): 403-428.
Accessed February 1, 2018, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.
4
Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown:
An Introduction to the New Testament, (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2016), 474-480.
5
Ibid, 480.
6
David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Robert W.
Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 574.
7
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 675. The use of this conjunction suggests comparison, usually by way of a

6. 5
conjunction, Paul reveals how the working of the Spirit for mutual benefit should function in the
church. Since Calvin’s commentary, many scholars have pointed out the similarities between
Paul’s metaphor and that of Menenius Agrippa, a consul of the Roman Republic in 494 B.C., in
which he compares the people of the state to the human body.8
This account was given during a
time in Rome when there was fear that inferior members were going to rise up in revolt, but on
account of this speech, and the idea that to kill one member is to kill the entire body, restored
harmony. The striking difference between these accounts is that Agrippa was mostly concerned
with the inferior members revolting and Paul was concerned with the pride of the self-
proclaimed superior members.9
If Paul were thinking of this analogy in the use of his own, he
most certainly was turning the cultural concept on its head. Rather than, in order to maintain
unity and peace, admonishing the weak to fall in line and submit, he admonishes the strong.
Paul repeats the word one (ἕν/ἑνὶ) five times in these two sentences, stressing the theme
of unity. He begins with the idea that a body, though complex and made of many different parts,
is a single unit. Obviously referencing the church, he then says, “οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστός.” This
clause seems to be awkward, only because Paul uses “Christ” to represent “the body of Christ.”10
But, it should be noted that the reader would have recalled Paul’s very first question in the letter
when he asks, “is Christ divided?”11
Thus, he continues the exhortation (παρακαλῶ) he began
with, in which he argues against their damaging factionalism and reminds them that they are
united with Christ.12
With this clause and the discussion of baptism that follows, Paul makes the
case that they are unable to separate “baptism into Christ” from “baptism into his body,” which
is the church.13
Their distinctions and differences cannot pull them from their firm common
ground and their identity, which is Christ.
Some have wrongly asserted here that the unity Paul is demanding for “eliminates” any
kind of cultural distinction.14
Since Paul references the distinctions between Jews and Greeks and
slaves and free people, it is clear that cultural and social diversity were on Paul’s mind.15
It
metaphor or an analogy. In using this word, the author would be giving an analogy depicting how something was to
be done.
8
John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to The Corinthians, ed. John Pringle
(Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1848), 408. Menenius Agrippa says, “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”
9
Garland, 594.
10
Ibid, 590.
11
1 Cor 1:13
12
It is interesting that Paul touches on themes from chapter one. Issues about Christ, factionalism, baptism,
and church unity. It is obvious that this section plays a significant role in supporting the major themes and purposes
of this letter.
13
Marcus Peter Johnson, One with Christ: An Evangelical Theology of Salvation, (Wheaton: Crossway,
2013), 229.
14
Charles R. Erdman, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Exposition, (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1929), 112. In an attempt to stress unity, Erdman suggest that Paul’s reference to “Jew and
Gentile, slave and freeman” was in order to stress that baptism into the church and the Holy Spirit eliminate any
kind of unchangeable distinctions. Though Paul’s analogy was primarily advocating unity in the diversity of
Spiritual gifting, this should not destroy cultural and physical diversity.
15
J. Brian Tucker, Reading 1 Corinthians, Cascade Companions, (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2017), 115.
Many commentators note that Paul omits “male and female” here. Some have suggested that this is because Paul
does not want to encourage a Corinthian misconception that attempts to transcend sex and gender differences. But,
this would correlate with the misinterpretation of the passage suggesting that Paul referenced these distinctions to
show how they are obliterated. It is more likely that Paul emphasized the sociological differences, because they were
a main concern for the unity of the church.

7. 6
would be a mistake to suggest that these distinctions must be eliminated to produce the unity
Paul is calling for.16
It makes more sense that any kind of ethnic or sociological wall that
separated them before has been destroyed through baptism, while maintaining their ethnic and
sociological differences. Most scholars have stressed the idea that Paul is advocating for
“diversity in unity” and “unity in diversity.”17
But, Soards rightly suggests that these phrases,
though true, are not synonymous.18
Paul is emphasizing unity “over” diversity, not to eliminate
distinction, but to emphasize its importance and role in creating unity.
Paul is then clear, stating that the basis for the unity of all (πάντα) is found ἐν/εἰς the one
Spirit. In deciding the force of a preposition, a good scholar should be careful to avoid forming a
“theology of prepositions.” Fee argues that in the case of those in 12:13 (ἐν/εἰς) in relation to the
Spirit, the force of the prepositional phrases “in” and “into” carry significant weight and
theological meaning.19
The problem is that the syntax of 12:13 is unclear, and it would be wrong
to treat all these prepositional phrases as technical terms that always carry the same meaning
when used, emphasizing too much weight on either side of an exegetical argument.20
Some argue
for an instrumental use of the prepositions, resulting in the meaning of water baptism, while
others argue for a spatial use of the prepositions, resulting in the meaning of a Spirit baptism.21
Though I would suggest that Paul is using an instrumental preposition, it should be noted that
these viewpoints are not mutually exclusive.22
Therefore, the emphasis of the prepositional
phrases, whether interpreted as “in” or “by,” draw out Paul’s focus on unity, that every believer
without distinction has been made a part of the body, in (or by) the one Spirit.23
A Body That Requires Individuals to be Unique
With καὶ γὰρ, Paul continues his metaphor of the body by narrowing in on the
perspectives of individual members in the body. He expands his idea of unity by focusing on
individual diversity. He uses two different perspectives, the first being from that of the self-
perceived weaker and lesser parts (shamed) of the body, and then followed up by the self-
proclaimed stronger (honored) parts. In the context of the Corinthian community, it must be
noted that within their social structure was a yearning for the accruement of honor and
16
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2009), 64.
17
Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of
St. Paul to the Corinthians, New International Critical Commentary, (New York: T. & T. Clark, 1914), 271.
18
Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians, New International Biblical Commentary: New Testament Series,
(Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), 263.
19
Gordon D. Fee, New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 98.
20
D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 1996), 46. On either side of
the argument, weather a charismatic or not, it would be wrong to assume that every time this phrase is used it should
be interpreted with the same prepositional force. Charismatics depend on prepositions to argue that there is a
separate post-conversion Spirit baptism and a water baptism. In rebuttal to this argument, a scholar can make the
same mistake in applying to much emphasis on the preposition and designating the term as a terminus technicus.
Instead, in this passage, to lean one way or the other misses the point of emphasis.
21
Wallace, 369-372.
22
Garland, 590.
23
In rebuttal to the charismatic argument of a post-conversion Spirit baptism, is the fact that Paul makes the
case that every believer is baptized and thus destroys the idea that a person can believe and be without the Spirit.

8. 7
significance.24
Most scholars miss the connection Paul is making to their cultural-social identity,
merely pointing to the differences of Spiritual gifts. But again, with Paul’s previous inclusion of
ethnic and social identities and his later mention of honor (τιµὴν) and shame (ἀτιµότερα), it
would be a mistake to miss the relevance Paul is bringing to a socially marginalized group. With
personifying different body parts, Paul asks rhetorical questions to make a strong argument for
the requirement of individual uniqueness, no matter how different one part is from another, and
especially if the part is seen as culturally insignificant.
Paul moves from a broad statement about the body being many, to focusing in on specific
anatomical parts. He begins with the foot comparing itself with the hand and then the ear
comparing itself to the eye. The Greek seems awkward here, but he is using the idiom οὐ παρὰ
τοῦτο, which literally translates “not because this” and means “not for this reason.”25
Paul adds
to the idom οὐκ ἔστιν, which results in a double negative strengthening the affirmative
statement, and rendering the phrase, “not for that reason any the less.”26
In the metaphor, Paul is
suggesting that the foot and the ear’s lack of importance in comparison is not a reason to make
them any less a part of the body. But, with the idiom and the double negative, he strengthens his
position and says that there is no reason whatsoever that they are of less importance. Paul then
uses νυνὶ δὲ (but as it is) to make a firm theological affirmation, denouncing his hypothetical and
erroneous conditional clauses that preceded.27
He shifts the focus from individual doubt about
inclusion toward the idea that God has given and required differences to make up unity. A body
that does not consist of different unique limbs ceases to be a living organism, or if it were a
living organism.28
A Body made of Unique Individuals with Equal Importance
Paul continues his metaphor from a different perspective. He uses the eye and the head to
demonstrate individuals who are highly esteemed, and he uses the hand and the foot to
demonstrate those who would have been in the laboring class of slavery.29
In the language, both
the eye and the head speak with arrogance, which is the same kind of attitude that would have
been found among the socially elite in the Corinthian church.30
But, Paul negates their exclusive
statements with the introductory phrase οὐ δύναται. With this phrase, he leaves no room for the
elite to deem the lower class unnecessary. He proceeds with a declaration about the unique parts
of the body and gives them n. He uses three different adjectives (ἀσθενέστερα, ἀτιµότερα, and
ἀσχήµονα) to represent different categorical body parts, but does not enlighten his readers on
which parts of the body he is referring to or how they specifically relate to each other. They are
merely representing broad categories within the first century Corinthian culture. With not being
specific, Paul was allowing each reader to self-reflect without making harsh judgments towards a
different cultural class.
24
Mark Finney, “Social Identity and Conflict in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 11.17-34 in Context,” in T&T Clark
Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament, ed. J. Brian Tucker and Colman A. Baker (New York:
Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), loc. 6812, Kindle.
25
Garland, 594.
26
Ibid.
27
Wallace, 231-232.
28
Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der Ereste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, Histroisch Theologische Auslegung:
Neues Testament, (Frankfurt: Fountain EBV & R. Brunnan, 2006), 732.
29
Garland, 595.
30
Mark T. Finney, Honour and Conflict in the Ancient World: 1 Corinthians in its Greco-Roman Social
Setting, (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013), 185.

9. 8
The first adjective is easier to distinguish and categorize, as Paul starts his declaration
with the contrastive conjunction ἀλλὰ,31
including πολλῷ as a dative of measure,32
and finishing
with µᾶλλον ἀναγκαῖά, rendering the phrase, “but much more necessary.”33
With this
adversative phrase, Paul suggests that the parts of the body that are ἀσθενέστερα (weaker) are
the previously mentioned hand and foot, and those who are culturally viewed as lesser.34
He also
includes the verb δοκοῦντα, to suggest that it is not that they are weaker, but it is simply a matter
of the heart and mind of those who look at them that way.
The following two adjectives are not as clear as the first, but still carry significant weight
to Paul’s point. The second adjective ἀτιµότερα is completely ambiguous, not connected to the
parts of the body preceding it or to the body parts of the body referred to in the third adjective.
But it is clear, like the first, that the lesser are to be elevated. Paul uses the imagery of clothing
someone to describe how the church should treat this ambiguous group deemed to be less
honorable, giving them abundant honor. The third adjective ἀσχήµονα is probably the hardest to
distinguish since it is a hapax legomena to the New Testament. In other Greek literature and in
the LXX, the word is used in reference to sexual organs.35
Because of this seemingly harsh
terminology, some translations have suggested that εὐσχηµοσύνην should be translated as
modesty, with this idea that they are to be covered carefully by the church.36
But, I would
suggest that Paul, like he does several other times in his metaphor, is taking something that is
culturally understood to be one way and presenting it in a completely different way. This word
represents the most unmentionable part of the body, which is a type of extreme, giving the idea
that even those that we want to deem dishonorable should be given dignity and precedence, not
modesty and subservience.37
This third adjective is not being compared to the first two as an
exception of this declaration, but as the climax of a sort of crescendo. The seemingly weaker the
body part, the greater the honor that should be given from the privileged.
With an understanding of this honor-shame culture, it is clear that Paul was turning the
construct on its head, destroying every kind of hierarchy that exists in the church. In doing so, it
is important to note again that Paul does not obliterate differences in this passage, but merely
social perceptions of those differences. He elevates the shamed members and humbles the
honored, bounding them together into one body.38
Paul equalizes the importance of each member
in the body and destroys any kind of ranking in terms of honor or shame.39
Since the body is
united with Christ, all social rankings are disposed of and individual members are no longer
31
Wallace, 671.
32
Ibid, 166.
33
Louw-Nida, 71.39.
34
Finney, Honour and Conflict in the Ancient World, 185.
35
John Chrysostom in Judith L. Kovacs and Robert Louis Wilken, 1 Corinthians Interpreted by Early
Christian Commentators, The Church’s Bible, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 209; Artemidorus
Daldianus, Onirocritica 1.45, 79, 80 and the LXX in Garland, 595; Finney, Honour and Conflict in the Ancient
World, 186.
36
NIV; ESV; Finney, Honour and Conflict in the Ancient World, 185 suggests that other commentators and
translations miss the fact that this word is used with such a negative connotation, especially in Ps-Sall. Rep. 9.2,
where the parts are so dishonorable that they cannot be honorably be named.
37
Further to this idea, the rendered meaning of “covering with special modesty” does not flow with the
Greek and would be an awkward interpretation, not supporting Paul intended theme.
38
Richard B. Hays, 1 Corinthians, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Preaching and Teaching,
(Westminster: John Knox Press, 2011), 221.
39
Finney, 186.

10. 9
superior or inferior, but equal.40
A Body of God Appointed Individuals Seeking Something Greater, Together
With the conjunction δέ plus the plural pronoun Ὑµεῖς, Paul transitions from the
metaphor of the human body back to the Corinthian church being the body of Christ, as was
communicated in v. 12. Further, he reiterates his point, that the body is made up of “all” (Ὑµεῖς)
of them, and that they each are merely parts (ἐκ µέρους) of the whole. This again supports the
idea that their individual uniqueness is a requirement to making the body. Then Paul addresses
the fact that God is the administrator of these differences, listing spiritual gifts through rhetorical
questions and thus reinforcing God’s orchestration of a unity shaped by diversity.
Paul finally concludes this section of his letter with the words ζηλοῦτε and δὲ. As
Garland points out that the amount of different ways scholars interpret this sentence are “as
diverse as the members in the body.”41
If ζηλοῦτε is to be understood as an imperative with a
consecutive δὲ, it would have been read as a command (But, you should be desiring). But, Paul
could have also written ζηλοῦτε as an indicative with an adversative δὲ, which would have been
negating their earnest desire (You are earnestly desiring, but…).42
The latter would make more
sense, since the gifts Paul listed are God given and not attained by men, but the interpretation
from the Greek is fragile at best.43
The opening adversative δὲ is translated in a way that does not
suggest that the higher gifts are the ones Paul listed in the verse before, nor that they should be
eager for gifts that they do not have. Instead, Paul is pointing to a discussion that he will develop
in chapter 14.44
He then transitions from a discussion about the importance of individual gifting
to the most excellent way in which the unity of the church should function. It is not a gift or a
characteristic, but a lifestyle and genetic aspect of the functioning body of Christ, that being love.
Conclusion
The application that can be drawn out exegetically from these passages should not be
understated in the culture in which we find ourselves today. The state of the individual human
heart can be just as arrogant as the privileged in the Corinthian community, or just as insecure as
the weak. The body of Christ continues to function as a light in the midst of a broken world, but
Paul’s correction and teaching continue to hold relevance for this generation. Believers find
themselves caught between issues of conformity and diversity, some suggesting that conformity
to Christ and his people is the denunciation of uniqueness and diversity. Some have eagerly
emphasized unity in Christ in a way that they have completely avoided acknowledging any kind
of difference that exists among its members. But, as Paul makes clear in this passage, the genetic
makeup of the church requires diversity. Conformity to Christ through the Spirit requires the
denunciation of sin and the walls the prevent unity, but in no way diminishes the importance of
God given uniqueness, weather that be racial, societal, or spiritual. God has given equal honor to
each member in their diversity, and Paul suggests that the way in which the church can function
is by individuals giving that same kind of honor to each other, through the excellent way of love.
40
Thomas R. Schreiner, The King In His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament,
(Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2013), 573.
41
Garland, 600.
42
Fee, 92.
43
D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14, (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1987), 52-56.
44
Ibid.

11. 10
Appendix 1: Clausal Diagram
7
ἑκάστῳ δὲ δίδοται ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύµατος πρὸς τὸ συµφέρον.
12
Καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶµα ἕν ἐστιν καὶ µέλη πολλὰ ἔχει,
πάντα δὲ τὰ µέλη τοῦ σώµατος
πολλὰ ὄντα
ἕν ἐστιν σῶµα,
οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστός·
13
καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύµατι ἡµεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶµα ἐβαπτίσθηµεν,
εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες,
εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι,
καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦµα ἐποτίσθηµεν.
14
Καὶ γὰρ τὸ σῶµα οὐκ ἔστιν ἓν µέλος ἀλλὰ πολλά.
15
ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ πούς· Ὅτι οὐκ εἰµὶ χείρ,
οὐκ εἰµὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος,
οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο
οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος;
16
καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ τὸ οὖς· Ὅτι οὐκ εἰµὶ ὀφθαλµός,
οὐκ εἰµὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος,
οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο
οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώµατος·
17
εἰ ὅλον τὸ σῶµα ὀφθαλµός, ποῦ ἡ ἀκοή;
εἰ ὅλον ἀκοή, ποῦ ἡ ὄσφρησις;
18
νυνὶ δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἔθετο τὰ µέλη, ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, ἐν τῷ σώµατι καθὼς
ἠθέλησεν.
19
εἰ δὲ ἦν τὰ πάντα ἓν µέλος, ποῦ τὸ σῶµα;
20
νῦν δὲ πολλὰ µὲν µέλη, ἓν δὲ σῶµα.
21
οὐ δύναται δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλµὸς εἰπεῖν τῇ χειρί·
Χρείαν σου οὐκ ἔχω,
ἢ πάλιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῖς ποσίν·
Χρείαν ὑµῶν οὐκ ἔχω·
22
ἀλλὰ πολλῷ µᾶλλον τὰ δοκοῦντα µέλη τοῦ σώµατος ἀσθενέστερα
ὑπάρχειν ἀναγκαῖά ἐστιν,
23
καὶ ἃ δοκοῦµεν ἀτιµότερα εἶναι τοῦ σώµατος, τούτοις τιµὴν
περισσοτέραν περιτίθεµεν, καὶ τὰ ἀσχήµονα ἡµῶν εὐσχηµοσύνην
περισσοτέραν ἔχει,
24
τὰ δὲ εὐσχήµονα ἡµῶν οὐ χρείαν ἔχει.
ἀλλὰ ὁ θεὸς συνεκέρασεν τὸ σῶµα, τῷ ὑστεροῦντι περισσοτέραν δοὺς τιµήν,
25
ἵνα µὴ ᾖ σχίσµα ἐν τῷ σώµατι,
ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων µεριµνῶσι τὰ µέλη.
26
καὶ εἴτε πάσχει ἓν µέλος, συµπάσχει πάντα τὰ µέλη· εἴτε δοξάζεται
µέλος, συγχαίρει πάντα τὰ µέλη.
27
Ὑµεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶµα Χριστοῦ
καὶ µέλη ἐκ µέρους.

12. 11
28
καὶ οὓς µὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ
πρῶτον ἀποστόλους,
δεύτερον προφήτας,
τρίτον διδασκάλους,
ἔπειτα δυνάµεις,
ἔπειτα χαρίσµατα
ἰαµάτων,
ἀντιλήµψεις,
κυβερνήσεις,
γένη γλωσσῶν.
29
µὴ πάντες ἀπόστολοι;
µὴ πάντες προφῆται;
µὴ πάντες διδάσκαλοι;
µὴ πάντες δυνάµεις;
30
µὴ πάντες χαρίσµατα ἔχουσιν ἰαµάτων;
µὴ πάντες γλώσσαις λαλοῦσιν;
µὴ πάντες διερµηνεύουσιν;
31
ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ χαρίσµατα τὰ µείζονα.
καὶ ἔτι καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν ὁδὸν ὑµῖν δείκνυµι.

13. 12
Appendix 1: Statement on Reading
I read the entirety of J. Brian Tucker’s 1 Corinthians book and answered the discussion
questions.

14. 13
Bibliography
Calvin, John. Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to The Corinthians. ed. John
Pringle. Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1848.
Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 1996.
———. Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1987.
Erdman, Charles R. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Exposition. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1929.
Fee, Gordon D. New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
Finney, Mark T. Honour and Conflict in the Ancient World: 1 Corinthians in its Greco-Roman
Social Setting. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Kindle Edition.
———. “Social Identity and Conflict in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 11.17-34 in Context.” in
T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament. ed. J. Brian Tucker and
Colman A. Baker. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Kindle Edition.
Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. ed.
Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Hays, Richard B. 1 Corinthians, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Preaching and
Teaching. Westminster: John Knox Press, 2011.
Holmes, M. W. The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Lexham Press; Society of Biblical
Literature, 2013.
James D.G. Dunn. New Testament Guides: 1 Corinthians. England: Sheffield Academic Press,
1995.
Johnson, Marcus Peter. One with Christ: An Evangelical Theology of Salvation. Wheaton:
Crossway, 2013.
Köstenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and
the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic,
2016.
Kovacs, Judith L. and Robert Louis Wilken. 1 Corinthians Interpreted by Early Christian
Commentators. The Church’s Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005.
Reinhard, Kathryn R. “Conscience, Interdependence, and Embodied Difference: What Paul’s

15. 14
Ecclesial Principles Can Offer the Contemporary Church.” Anglican Theological Review
94, no. 3 (Summer 2012): 403-428. Accessed February 1, 2018, ATLA Religion Database
with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.
Robertson, Archibald and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First
Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. New International Critical Commentary. New
York: T. & T. Clark, 1914.
Schnabel, Eckhard J. Der Ereste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Histroisch Theologische
Auslegung: Neues Testament. Frankfurt: Fountain EBV & R. Brunnan, 2006.
Schreiner, Thomas R. The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2013.
Soards, Marion L. 1 Corinthians, New International Biblical Commentary: New Testament
Series. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999.
Tucker, J. Brian. Reading 1 Corinthians. Cascade Companions. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2017.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2009.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1997.
Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament:
Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.