“Food is for the belly and the belly for food, you say. True; and one day God will put an end to both. But the body is not for fornication; it is for the Lord-and the Lord for the body.” 1 st Corinthians 6: 13 The Broadman Bible Commentary In the Broadman Commentary it talks most about how the Corinthians were using a phrase of the day to justify the practice of sexual immoralities. Food is for the belly and the belly for food. They were tying to tie that saying with a philosophy that the body was meant for sexual things and that sexual things were meant for the body, these being very similar.
The commentary goes on to say that Paul “strongly disagrees with the application the Corinthians make.” (pg. 325) One can not tie food for the stomach and body for sex. He thought that his was a serious misunderstanding of the Corinthians. He was trying to get them to think that the body was not for there personal sexual pleasures but for the glory of God. NIV Applied Commentary In the NIV Applied Commentary it talks about how the “Corinthians were apparently inferring from the relatively accurate observation that food and stomach were made for each other that the body and sexual release were identically related.
After all, both eating and having sex seem to be limited to this life.” (pg. 126) This commentary says that Paul does not agree with this at all. That there is no need for the stomach in a resurrected body, but there will most certainly be a body’s resurrected. It says that sexual immorality affects one’s entire body in a way that overeating cannot. So the body is to be dedicated to the Lord in holiness and not to sexual impurities. The Cambridge Bible Commentary The Cambridge Bible Commentary talks about the philosophers belief about the needs of the human body.
The Term Paper on Managing Food Allergies and Intolerances in the Hospitality Sector
A food allergy is the response of the body to a food or protein the body perceives as injurious and therefore produces antibodies (Eigenmann, 2009). Highly popular are allergies towards nuts, eggs or seafood. The symptoms can vary from swelling of the throat or mouth, skin reactions, noxious feeling, breathing difficulties or even collapse (Busky, 2012). Intolerance on the other hand is the ...
“Whenever the need arises (sexual needs), is just as legitimate and just as natural an action as eating food whenever one is hunger.” (pg. 46 It goes on to say that philosophers believed “one should live in accordance with nature and that no natural function was shameful. The Corinthians applied this and further concluded that when sexual urges happened that it is a natural event in a persons life. So believing this lead them to seeing any kind of sexual experiences was good in the sight of the Lord. In a way they were giving themselves to sex and not to the Lord. The Letters to the Corinthians revised edition In The Letters to the Corinthians it talks about how the Greeks did not think that the body was not an important thing.
They went to the point that they looked down on the body. The important thing was the soul, the spirit of a man; the body was a thing that did not matter. The Corinthians had an outlook on the body, that “since the body was of no importance, you could do what you liked with it; you could let it sate its appetites.” (pg. 55) The support was the phrase that “Food was made for the belly and the belly for food.” He says that the “Stomach and food are passing things”, “But the body, the personality, the man as a whole will not pass away; he is made for union with Christ in this world and still closer union hereafter.” (pg.
56) The man is not made for the sex but for the Lord. My Interpretation “Food is for the belly and the belly for food” Why would Paul put this common phrase into his sermon on sexual immorality and fortification It would seem to encourage the Corinthians that they are doing good in following the console of the philosophers. I feel that he is merle agreeing with the common phrase that food was for the stomach. He was doing more than that though. He was trying to get them to think about what they were doing.
The Research paper on The Benefits Of Watching Food Shows
No doubt that reached a point where eating food is no longer enough – we must now be entertain by it. And boy, are we ever. In the past 10 years, more than ever before, food-related programming loomed Large (on cable, in particular) and during the same decade that bid goodbye to Julia Child-a pioneer of so many things, including food TV-we welcomed the shiny young faces of Rachael Ray, Giada De ...
They were trying to separate the body and the soul. They were simplifying the matter; comparing two physical needs. There conclusion was that there was nothing wrong with eating and in turn there was nothing wrong with there sexual actions. Paul did not agree with this interpretation of there personal bodies. He wanted them to understand that there was not connection between the two phrases; food and sex.
He wanted to show them that there food would pass away in death and not be resurrected but there body (soul), which is in Christ, would be born again. He affirms this in verse 14 by saying “God raised the Lord and will also raise us by His power. He is trying to tell them that there physical actions would affect more than just there body (stomach) but would also affect the body (soul).
Paul even goes on to say that we do not even need these physical things.
In chapter 8, verse 8, he says, “Food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.”.
