I Corinthians 6:13 · Bible study
1 Corinthians 6:13 Commentary: Body for the Lord
Greek · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Paul contrasts perishable food with the body's eternal purpose for the Lord, linking it to Christ's resurrection and ours.
Research Summary
- Meaning: The body has a permanent purpose for Christ, unlike the temporary relationship of food and the stomach.
- Key words: katargēsei (bring to nothing), porneia (sexual immorality), sōma (body), kurios (Lord).
- Main debate: Whether “the Lord for the body” refers to Christ’s incarnate redemption or to His lordship/resurrection of the body; both affirm the body’s lasting value.
- Theological theme: Resurrection hope grounds bodily holiness; the body is destined for glory, not destruction.
- Best use: Foundational text for teaching on sexual ethics, the theology of the body, and the implications of the resurrection.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
“Food for the stomach and the stomach for food,” but God will destroy them both. The body is not intended for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
WEB World English Bible 2000
“Foods for the belly, and the belly for foods,” but God will bring to nothing both it and them. But the body is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
KJV King James Version 1769
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
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:
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
the meats are for the belly, and the belly for the meats. And God both this and these shall make useless; and the body is not for whoredom, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God will bring to nothing both it and them: but the body [is] not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Meat for the belly and the belly for the meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord: and the Lord for the body.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Las viandas para el vientre, y el vientre para las viandas; empero y á él y á ellas deshará Dios. Mas el cuerpo no es para la fornicación, sino para el Señor; y el Señor para el cuerpo:
A comida é para o estômago, e o estômago é para a comida; mas Deus os aniquilará, tanto a um, como ao outro. Porém o corpo não é para o pecado sexual, mas para o Senhor, e o Senhor é para o corpo.
Les aliments sont pour le ventre, et le ventre pour les aliments; et Dieu détruira l’ un comme les autres. Mais le corps n’ est pas pour l’ impudicité. Il est pour le Seigneur, et le Seigneur pour le corps.
Die Speise dem Bauche und der Bauch der Speise; aber Gott wird diesen und jene zunichte machen. Der Leib aber nicht der Hurerei, sondern dem HERRN, und der HERR dem Leibe.
De spijzen zijn voor de buik, en de buik is voor de spijzen; maar God zal beide dezen en die te niet doen. Doch het lichaam is niet voor de hoererij, maar voor den Heere en de Heere voor het lichaam.
Le vivande son per il ventre, e il ventre è per le vivande; ma Iddio distruggerà e queste e quello. Il corpo però non è per la fornicazione, ma è per il Signore, e il Signore è per il corpo;
Pokarmy brzuchowi należą, a brzuch pokarmom; ale Bóg i brzuch i pokarmy skazi; lecz ciało nie należy wszeteczeństwu ale Panu, a Pan ciału.
Пища для чрева, и чрево для пищи; но Бог уничтожит и то и другое. Тело же не для блуда, но для Господа, и Господь для тела.
食物 是為肚腹， 肚腹 是為食物；但 神 要叫這兩樣 都廢壞。 身子 不 是為淫亂，乃 是為主； 主 也是為身子。
Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will put an end to them together. But the body is not for the desires of the flesh, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body:
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · I Corinthians 6:13
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that Paul uses the temporary relationship of food and the stomach to argue that the body has a far greater destiny. Adam Clarke notes that God will destroy both the appetite and the food, but the body was not made for sexual immorality; it was made for Christ. Barnes calls the opening line a proverb of the Corinthians, which Paul refutes by pointing to the perishable nature of both food and the belly. Vincent emphasises the verb katargēsei (“will bring to nothing”), indicating that the mutual adaptation of food and stomach is only temporary. The core consensus is clear: fornication cannot be treated as indifferent, like eating meat offered to idols, because the body is created for the Lord and destined for resurrection, not for destruction. The Lord is “for the body” in that He redeems it and will raise it (Gill, Calvin). Thus, the body’s purpose is permanent and holy, not temporary and indulgent.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Christ as Redeemer of the body: Gill and Clarke emphasize Christ's incarnation and sacrificial purchase; the Lord provides for the body’s final redemption.
- Christ as the body's ultimate purpose: Barnes and Cambridge Bible stress that the body is designed for Christ's service; the Lord is the end to which the body is directed.
What is clear: The body is not made for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and God will abolish the temporary pairing of food and the stomach.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Whether fornication is a matter of indifference like food | All traditions agree Paul explicitly denies that sexual immorality is morally neutral; it violates the body's purpose for the Lord. | Some Corinthians argued it was indifferent; Paul's clear rejection is not debated among Christians, but some modern ethical systems question whether all forms of porneia are equally prohibited. |
| Meaning of 'the Lord for the body' | The phrase affirms Christ's positive relation to the physical body, He redeems, sanctifies, and will raise it. | Some commentators (e.g., Gill) emphasize the Lord's incarnation and sacrificial redemption; others (e.g., Cambridge Bible) stress the Lord as the body's ultimate purpose and end. |
| Interpretation of 'God will destroy both it and them' | The stomach and food are temporary; both will cease to function in the future state. | Whether 'destroy' (katargēsei) means annihilation or transformation into a spiritual body. Most see cessation of function, not the destruction of the person or the resurrection body. |
| Whether the opening clause is a Corinthian slogan or a proverb | The language reflects a saying used by some Corinthians to justify indulgence. | Barnes calls it an adage; Henry sees it as a quote from the libertine party; others see Paul granting the premise to refute its application to fornication. |
Historical & Cultural Context
First-century Corinth was notorious for sexual licentiousness, even by pagan standards. The city housed the temple of Aphrodite, and ritual prostitution was practiced there (Cambridge Bible, Lange). Many Corinthians, influenced by Greek philosophy, believed the body was merely material and thus morally neutral. Some Christians in Corinth had begun to argue that since “all things are lawful” (1 Cor 6:12), sexual immorality was as permissible as eating meat, a view Paul directly confronts. The apostolic decree in Acts 15 had already linked the prohibition of fornication with certain food restrictions, but some Corinthians thought both were equally indifferent (Matthew Henry). Paul draws a sharp line: food and the stomach are temporary, but the body is for the Lord and will be raised. This argument also counters the gnostic-influenced notion that physical actions are irrelevant to the spirit. By grounding his ethics in the resurrection, Paul insists that the body matters eternally and must be used for God’s glory, not for porneia.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for 1 Corinthians 6:13. The Greek text is secure across manuscripts. Minor differences in English translations stem from rendering katargēsei (e.g., “destroy” vs. “bring to nothing”) and the handling of the dative articles, but these do not affect the core meaning.
Reception History
This verse has been a key text for Christian sexual ethics from the patristic era onward. Early church Fathers like Clement of Alexandria used it to argue that the body is not inherently evil but intended for holiness. Medieval theologians cited it in discussions of the resurrection and the dignity of the body. The Reformers (Calvin, Luther) preached on it to oppose both asceticism (which denigrated the body) and libertinism (which abused it). In modern times, it is foundational for the Catholic theology of the body and is widely referenced in evangelical teaching on purity and the resurrection. The common thread across traditions is the conviction that the body's destiny in Christ shapes its present moral use.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Temporary (vv. 13a-b). Food and the belly are paired for now, but both will be destroyed. Physical appetites are not eternal.
- The Permanent (v. 13c-d). The body was never designed for sexual immorality. It belongs to the Lord, who will raise it.
- The Response (vv. 14-15). Because God raised Jesus and will raise us, our bodies are members of Christ, unfit for union with a prostitute.
Five-point outline
- Paul quotes a Corinthian slogan: “foods for the belly, belly for foods” (v. 13a).
- He counters: God will destroy both, they are passing away (v. 13b).
- But the body has a different purpose: not for porneia, but for the Lord (v. 13c).
- The Lord is also “for the body”: He saves it, sanctifies it, and will raise it (v. 13d; see v. 14).
- Therefore the body is a member of Christ, making fornication a violation of that union (vv. 15-17).
Illustration hooks
- Old car. You buy a used car just to run errands; it will eventually end up in the scrap yard. But a gift from a loved one, a restored classic, you treat differently because it has lasting value.
- Meal vs. marriage. A takeaway meal satisfies the stomach for a few hours; your spouse is a lifelong partner. If you treat your spouse like a meal, you miss the whole point.
- Smartphone. You don’t use your phone for everything it can physically do (like a hammer) because it was designed for a specific purpose. The body was designed for the Lord, not for whatever seems lawful.
Questions your congregation is asking
- “If my body is just temporary, why does sexual sin matter more than overeating?”
- “What does it mean that ‘the Lord is for the body’? Does that just mean He owns it?”
- “How can I repent of sexual sin when I feel my body is ruined or used up?”
Leading a Discussion
In 1 Corinthians 6:13, Paul takes a Corinthian slogan about food and turns it upside down. The belly and food are a passing pair, but the body is made for an eternal relationship with the Lord. Let these questions help you explore what it means to live as people whose bodies are headed for resurrection, not destruction.
Discussion questions
- What does the slogan “foods for the belly, belly for foods” suggest about how the Corinthians viewed physical appetites?
- Why does Paul mention that God will “bring to nothing” both food and the stomach? What does that imply about their ultimate significance?
- How does Paul contrast food and the stomach with the body and the Lord? What makes the two cases different?
- In what sense is the Lord “for the body”? Read verse 14 and then discuss: does the resurrection change how we view our physical actions.
- Paul says the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord. What does that mean practically for decisions about dating, marriage, or lust?
- How does the truth that your body is a member of Christ (v. 15) affect how you treat your own body and the bodies of others?
- What would it look like to present your body as a “living sacrifice” (Romans 12:1) this week, in light of this verse?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Matthew 15:17 | Don’t you understand that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the belly and then out of the body? |
| Matthew 15:20 | These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands doesn’t defile the man.” |
| Mark 7:19 | because it doesn’t go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, making all foods clean?” |
| John 6:27 | Don’t work for the food which perishes, but for the food which remains to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For God the Father has sealed him.” |
| John 6:49 | Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they died. |
| Romans 6:12 | Therefore don’t let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. |
| Romans 7:4 | Therefore, my brothers, you also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you would be joined to another, to him who was raised from the dead, that we might produce fruit to God. |
| Romans 12:1 | Therefore I urge you, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke takes "belly" to mean the animal appetite for food, not just the physical organ. He argues God matched food to that appetite, but both are temporary, destroyed by death. In contrast, the body itself is made for Christ, destined not for sensuality but as a temple for the Lord.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes treats the opening statement
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator contrasts food and the body's appetite, which belong to this passing world, with the body's true purpose, which belongs to Christ. Paul denies the pagan view that the body exists for fornication and insists instead that the body is meant to serve and honor the Lord, who in turn was given for the body's sake and resurrection.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The note draws a sharp contrast between food, which serves the stomach and will pass away, and the body, which is made for the Lord and will be raised. Sexual sin violates this divine purpose, because the body belongs to God, not to temporary appetites.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill argues that food and the stomach are temporary and morally indifferent, but the body itself was made for Christ and destined for glory. Christ, in turn, was appointed from eternity for the body, to redeem it, sanctify it, and raise it. This sacred purpose, not shared by food, makes fornication a violation of the body's true calling.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB argues that Paul deliberately contrasts fornication with eating meats. Meats and the stomach will both be destroyed, making food indifferent. But the body is created for the Lord and destined for resurrection, so fornication violates a body that God intends to raise, not discard.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange argues that Paul's statement "All things are lawful for me" is not an opponent's objection but Paul's own fundamental Christian principle, which he then immediately qualifies. The key distinction is that the body exists for the Lord and shares in His resurrection, making fornication a uniquely grievous sin that desecrates what belongs to Christ and the Spirit.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry draws a direct connection between the Corinthians' mistaken freedom about foods and their deeper error about sexual immorality. Just as some thought Christian liberty gave them license to eat what the apostles had forbidden, others reasoned that fornication was also permissible since local law did not condemn it.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent focuses on Paul's argument that a law of adaptation runs through nature, seen in the mutual fit between food and the digestive organs. Fornication violates this design because the body was not adapted by God for that purpose. This physical adaptation is only temporary, since both body and nourishment are perishable.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley draws a sharp line between matters he calls indifferent, like food, and actions that are always evil, like fornication. Foods serve only a temporary purpose in this life, but the body is made for the Lord, and the Lord cares for the body as its Savior, proven by the resurrection.