1 Corinthians 12:27 and Defining “the Body”
Paul deliberately excludes himself from “the body of Christ” with his use of “ye” in 1 Corinthians 12:27:
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
He refers exclusively to the church at Corinth, as he writes from afar and not as a member of that assembly. This narrows the concept of the “body of Christ” to a localized entity rather than a universal one, consisting of all believers. This linguistic and contextual choice by Paul emphasizes the Corinthian congregation’s distinct identity and mutual interdependence as a single, functioning unit, echoing the body analogy in 1 Corinthians 12:12–26. Each member’s role is divinely appointed within that specific group (v. 18).
By addressing “ye,” the plural “you” in the King James English, directed solely at his recipients, Paul underscores “the body” as a congregation and only a congregation, nothing bigger. Church unity proceeds through shared doctrine, discipline, and practice among those formally covenanted together.
“The Body” Then in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17
The coming clear localized definition of body of 1 Corinthians 12:27 directly bolsters the doctrine of closed communion derived from 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, where Paul describes the Lord’s Supper as “the communion of the blood of Christ” and “the communion of the body of Christ.” One bread and one cup are the unity of one body. “One body” is not an expression of numerical one, but qualitatively one. A body is one, not separate body parts, but body parts fitting and operating together as one.
Participation in the Supper is mainly not a personal memorial but a corporate act that expresses and sustains the oneness of the “body”—the very entity Paul later defines in chapter 12 as the Corinthian church. If the body is confined to that assembly, excluding even Paul himself, despite his apostleship and shared faith, then the Supper’s fellowship must likewise be restricted to its baptized, disciplined members in good standing, who alone embody that “one body” at the table.
The Problems With Not and the Advantage For Closed Communion
Allowing outsiders—such as visitors, unbaptized individuals, or members of other congregations—would definitely contradict the definition of body provided by Paul and the true expression of its unity. Conceptually or doctrinally, it introduces potential divisions, as Paul warns against in 11:17–22, or incompatible practices (10:20–21), and undermines the ordinance’s role in proclaiming Christ’s death amid the church’s mutual accountability (11:26–33).
In essence, this interpretation transforms closed communion from an optional caution into a scriptural necessity: the Supper becomes an exclusive emblem of the body’s purity and harmony, protecting it from judgment (11:29–32) and ensuring it reflects the disciplined love Paul mandates within each congregation (1 Cor. 5:6–8; cf. Acts 2:42). It shifts the focus from broad evangelical inclusivity to the rigorous, local fidelity that mirrors the Corinthian context, where Paul tailored his teaching to heal factionalism in the church at Corinth. This Corinth-specific reading prioritizes the epistle’s immediate audience, reinforcing the practice as a safeguard for ecclesial integrity rather than a barrier to Christian charity.
“Paul deliberately excludes himself from ‘the body of Christ’ with his use of ‘ye’ in 1 Corinthians 12:27.”
Did he really exclude himself?
Read the context. Paul teaches the unity of the body:
1 Cor. 12:12–13 — “For as the body is one, and hath many members… For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body… and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”
Paul uses we, the first person plural, to define that one body. Then, in v.27 he addresses the Corinthians: “Now ye are the body of Christ…” That is not exclusion; it is inclusion. Paul has already placed himself and all believers in the same single body by the Spirit; now he speaks directly to the Corinthian congregation and says, you too are part of that one body.
What you get when you ignore the context is a false conclusion. Verse 27 does not contradict the preceding verses; it completes them. Paul explained the gifts, declared the oneness of the body by the Spirit, and then insisted to the Corinthians — even to the most troubled church — “ye are the body of Christ.”
This error comes from a presupposition that limits the church to a local assembly only. The truth Paul teaches is broader and deeper: every individual believer, gathered in local churches, belongs to the one true Church — the body of Christ — flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone.
Tom
Tom,
When Paul says the body is one, he speaks of the human body, not the church. The human body isn’t all over the earth. It’s in one location. The human body is one and has many members or body parts. Both baptism and the Lord’s Supper portray that unity — both unify the believer to the body. “Into,” translating the Greek preposition eis, means “identify, as in 1 Corinthians 10, when the children of Israel were baptized into Moses. They were not physically placed in Moses, but identified with him. Paul is not talking about one in number, but one in unity, like he uses the terminology “one mouth” and “one mind.” That didn’t mean that churches had only one in number, but that they were unified in their mouths and their bodies. Like those at the church at Corinth, Paul came into oneness with a church through baptism and the Lord’s Supper (“baptized”, “drink”). He just talked about the Lord’s Supper in the previous chapter.
If “the body of Christ” were all believers, Paul would not have excluded himself. You’re still in trouble there, Tom, even with your attempts to force the meaning into your presuppositions.
“When Paul says the body is one, he speaks of the human body, not the church.”
What are you talking about? It’s your presuppositions that are clouding your understanding. Paul told them plainly in 1 Corinthians 1 that they were not of Apollos, or of Paul, but all in Christ.
The obvious teaching here is that believers are not of Kent, independent of Tom, nor are they divided by personalities or preferences—but are to be of the same mind and judgment within the church.
That’s exactly why the house of Chloe brought word to Paul about the unnecessary divisions in the church. Do you actually believe there were not multiple churches throughout Corinth?
If so, that would mean the “house of Chloe” — a single local assembly — had the entire population of Corinth meeting there. That would be a ridiculous conclusion.
So, Brother Kent, let me ask you again: Why did they bring their complaint to the Apostle Paul, and why did he address the matter so directly in 1 Corinthians chapters 1 through 3 based on the clear understanding that the local assemblies were not to be divided, but to be of the same mind perfectly joined together?
Tom
You are the Tom who I’m not allowing comments here, I believe, which I wasn’t sure until this comment. “What are you talking about?” Is not an argument. “In Christ” and “the body of Christ” are not the same thing. The oneness is local, you are correct there, in an actual church, not a nebulous, mystical something or other. “Ridiculous conclusion” is not an argument. Saying that what you say is a “clear understanding” does not mean it is. You did not answer what I actually wrote, which is line with the Tom that I’ve gone round and round with in the past.