-5

1 Corinthians 6:

13a “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other.

Does 1 Corinthians 6:13 mean that after the resurrection, we will not eat?

3 Answers3

2

Apparently the question arose from a mis-understanding of the verse. Let read it again

13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. (NIV)

There is a parallel in the verse which is

  • Food for the stomach and the stomach for food
  • The body for the Lord and the Lord for the body

Paul used the first statement that Corinthians take it as "True", to illustrate the second statement is also "True".

However, the Lord is not a prostitute. So if the Corinthians loved to unite with a prostitute, then their Lord was a prostitute, and not the Christ. Paul continued his argument in the following verses

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!

16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” (NIV)

Back to the question. Does 1 Corinthians 6:13 mean that after the resurrection, we will not eat?

The answer is false. The resurrected Christ did eat,

Luke 24:41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?”

42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,

43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. (NIV)

Another time the resurrected Christ ate was in John 21:12-13, though it was not explicit Christ ate the fish.

As to us, while we resurrected and entitle to live in the new Jerusalem, where there is the river of the water of life, on each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve fruit yielding every month (Revelation 22:1-2). Do we expect not drinking its water and eating its fruit?

Vincent Wong
  • 4,865
  • 1
  • 4
  • 31
1

If 1 Cor 6:13 means that we will have no stomach after the resurrection, then will have no body either according to the same text. However, we know from 1 Cor 15:35-49 that we definitely will have a body after the resurrection.

So, what does 1 Cor 6:1 mean? It simply means that both the bod, including the stomach, will be destroyed and probably refers to at least one or more of the following:

  1. For all people: When the mortal body dies, it is destroyed, ie, decays to dust (see per Job 19:26, Matt 10:28a, 2 Cor 5:1, etc)
  2. For the wicked: God destroys the wicked at the great eschatological judgement (Matt 10:28b, 2 Thess 1:7-9, etc)
  3. For the Righteous: At the resurrection, the righteous will be given "heavenly bodies" which are entirely different from our current earthly bodies, 1 Cor 15:35-49. Whether these will have stomachs or not, we are not told.

Therefore, as per 1 Cor 6:13, all our earthly bodies, including our stomach will be destroyed; and for the righteous, we will receive much better "heavenly bodies" about which we know nothing, except that they will be very different from our current ones.

Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
  • indeed, “destroy” seems to suggest death and annihilation. But what of “destroying food”? I would hazard an explanation that this destruction relates to eschatological future, when in heavenly kingdom there will be no need either of butchering animals for meat, or milking cows for milk and cheese, or cultivating lands by heavenly s for harvesting fruits and vegetables, for such a physical food and, ergo, eating will be abolished/destroyed. Our bodies will be like that of the Lord, who hasn’t eaten anything since that fish (John 21) for already more than 2000 years. – Levan Gigineishvili Jan 14 '23 at 05:12
  • "entirely different from our current earthly bodies" Not entirely different, but the kind of difference as between a seed and the plant it grows into. I take that as meaning there will be more similarity than difference. After all Jesus's resurrection body was still human, and he ate etc. It would be very odd for us all to have entirely different resurrection bodies except for Jesus himself, the one in whose image we are made! – curiousdannii Jan 14 '23 at 12:54
0

Definitely, our body will be changed, its mortality/corruptibility clad in immortality/incorruptibility (1 Cor. 15:53-55). Sex and procreation will no more be there, so, sexual organs - obsolete; physical food will also be abolished, as Paul says here, in 1 Cor 6:13, and necessarily, if so, then food-digesting system will also be abolished.

This is clear with bodies of astronauts: when they are too long outside the atmosphere in weightless surrounding, they need no more rigidity of bones, so they start to get softer; after return the astronauts need a long process of treatment and rehabilitation so that their bones regain their rigidity necessary for normal functioning of body in earthly conditions. Now just imagine how much more drastic a change will be for a body to be transferred not above our atmosphere, but to to the very Kingdom of God.

Thus, no sex and no physical food in the Eternal Kingdom, for we shall be like angels (cf. Matthew 20:30).

Yet, if some are of excessively crude mind and heart, such can desire sex and tasty food+drinks also in the Eternity in Paradise. For such there is an alternative Muslim paradise with seventy virgins for sex on a daily basis (quite a formidable feat, and I wonder what will happen if a man gets over-satiated by so much of sex, which will happen perhaps already after or before a third virgin: will he be allowed to say “no” to the remaining 67 virgins, or he will be obliged to go with them also? And what about women? Will they also get 70 virgin Adonis-like men up there?) and with rivers of milk (so, also cows and barbecues!), honey and wine (so also grapes and other fruits and vegetables!). Actually, with certain reservations, not a bad place for lovers of sex and a tasty food+drinking. About which matter I join my bewilderment to that of the great 12th c. Sufi Muslim poet Omar Khayyam:

"Wine to drink is a sin." Think, do not rush! Himself against life is clearly not sinning. To hell to send because of wine and women? Then in heaven, probably not a soul.

Levan Gigineishvili
  • 10,559
  • 1
  • 11
  • 26
  • +1 That's the funniest thing that I have ever read in this otherwise difficult-to-amuse community :) –  Jan 14 '23 at 02:12
  • @TonyChan Thanks for the upvote and for resonating with my amusing myself!)) – Levan Gigineishvili Jan 14 '23 at 05:02
  • 1
    One of Jesus' most common metaphors for the afterlife was the banquet. Sorry, but I see no justification in this verse or any other you mentioned for any hint that there will be no eating after the resurrection. – curiousdannii Jan 14 '23 at 12:52
  • @curiousdannii With the same logic, then, there is also mystical wedding in Apocalypse, but to say that involves a physical sex, will be utterly preposterous. The same with “banquet”. – Levan Gigineishvili Jan 14 '23 at 13:26
  • 1
    There is at least clear texts that indicate there will not be marriage/sex in heaven. But 1 Cor 6:13 does not say people in the new earth won't eat. – curiousdannii Jan 14 '23 at 13:37
  • I'd be interested in how you would answer this question, then... – Steve can help Jan 14 '23 at 14:31
  • @curiousdannii sorry, but, as wedding is metaphoric, so is the banquet; and both stand for deifying contemplation of the eternal Trinity. Paradise with vintage Chardonnay wine is a Mahometan paradise where also the virgin ladies will be implied after the banquet. I do not envy, though, anybody for such paradise, for it will get boring as quickly as a blitz of a lightning – Levan Gigineishvili Jan 14 '23 at 15:32