Albert Barnes Commentary


Albert Barnes Commentary
"Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall bring to nought both it and them. But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body:" — 1 Corinthians 6:13 (ASV)
Meats for the belly, etc. This has every appearance of being an adage or proverb. Its meaning is plain: "God has made us with appetites for food, and He has made food adapted to such appetites; and it is right, therefore, to indulge in luxurious living."
The word belly (Greek: koilia) here denotes the stomach; and the argument is that, since God created the natural appetite for food and also created food, it was right to indulge in eating and drinking to whatever extent the appetite demanded.
The word meats (Greek: brwmata) here does not denote animal food particularly, or flesh, but any kind of food. This was the meaning of the English word "meats" formerly, as seen, for example, in Matthew 3:4; Matthew 6:25; Matthew 9:10; Matthew 10:10; Matthew 14:9, and following.
But God shall destroy. This is Paul's reply to the argument. His reply is that since both food and the stomach are so soon to be destroyed, they are unworthy of the care bestowed on them; attention should instead be directed to better things.
It is unworthy of the immortal mind to spend its time and thought making provision for the body, which is soon to perish. Especially, a person should be willing to abandon indulgences in these things when they tend to injure the mind and destroy the soul. It is unworthy of a mind that is to live forever to be so anxious about that which will soon be destroyed in the grave. We may observe here:
Now the body is not, etc. The meaning is: "But (de) the body is not designed for licentiousness, but to be devoted to the Lord."
The remainder of this chapter is occupied with an argument against indulgence in licentiousness—a crime to which the Corinthians were particularly exposed (see the Introduction to this epistle).
It cannot be supposed that any members of the church would indulge in this vice or vindicate it. However, two things were certain:
Hence, the apostle furnished them with arguments against it, both to guard them from temptation and to enable them to meet those who defended it, and also to settle the morality of the question on an immovable foundation.
The first argument is stated here: the body of man was designed by its Maker to be devoted to Him and should be consecrated to the purposes of a pure and holy life. We are, therefore, bound to devote our animal as well as our rational powers to the service of the Lord alone.
And the Lord for the body. The meaning is: "The Lord is, in an important sense, for the body; that is, He acts, plans, and provides for it. He sustains and keeps it, and He is making provision for its immortal purity and happiness in heaven. It is not right, therefore, to take the body, which is nourished by the kind and constant agency of a holy God, and devote it to purposes of pollution."
That there is a reference in this phrase to the resurrection is apparent from the following verse. And since God will exert His mighty power in raising up the body and will make it glorious, it ought not to be prostituted to purposes of licentiousness.
References: "fornication" (1 Thessalonians 4:3, 7); "lord" (Romans 12:1); "Lord" (Ephesians 5:23).