Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 6:16
What? know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
16. for two, saith he, shall be one flesh ] No words could more plainly shew than these and the preceding, what a monstrous perversion the sin here mentioned is of the mysterious union between the sexes sanctified by God in Holy Matrimony. No words could more strongly imply than those which follow, that he who is ‘joined to a harlot’ thereby separates himself from the Lord.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 16. He that is joined to a harlot is one body] In Sohar Genes., fol. 19, we have these remarkable words: Whosoever connects himself with another man’s wife, does in effect renounce the holy blessed God, and the Church of the Israelites.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The conjunction of the husband and wife, mentioned Gen 2:24, and the conjunction of the fornicator and the harlot, differ not as to the species of the act, only as to the morality of it; the former is an honest and lawful act, the other a dishonest and filthy act. So that he that is wickedly joined to a harlot, maketh himself one flesh with her with whom he committeth that folly and lewdness, and he must needs by it separate his body from its membership with Christ, whose holiness will admit no such union.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. Justification of his havingcalled fornicators “members of an harlot” (1Co6:15).
joinedby carnalintercourse; literally, “cemented to”: cleaving to.
one bodywith her.
saith heGod speakingby Adam (Gen 2:24; Mat 19:5).”He which made them at the beginning said,” &c. (Eph5:31).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot,…. Not in marriage, but in carnal copulation, and unclean embraces, is one body with her
for two (“saith he”, Adam, or Moses, or God, or the Scripture, or as R. Sol. Jarchi says, the Holy Spirit, Ge 2:24)
shall be one flesh; what is originally said of copulation in lawful marriage, in which man and wife, legally coupled together, become one flesh, is applied to the unlawful copulation of a man with an harlot, by which act they also become one body, one flesh; and which is made use of by the apostle, to deter the members of Christ from the commission of this sin, which makes a member of Christ one body and flesh with an harlot, than which nothing is more monstrous and detestable. The apostle here directs to the true sense of the phrase in Genesis, “and they shall be one flesh”; that is, man and wife shall only have carnal knowledge of, and copulation with each other. Some Jewish k writers interpret this phrase, “on account of the foetus”, which is formed by the means of them both, and which becomes “their one flesh”: others l, thus as if they were, or because they are, like as if they were one flesh; but others m, in more agreement with the apostle, think that this has respect , “to that conjunction”, by which the fixing of the species is completed; and others n expressly thus, “they two shall be one flesh”,
, “that is, in the place where both of them make one flesh”: which is equally done by unlawful copulation with an harlot, as with a man’s own wife.
k Tzeror Hammor, fol. 6. 3. Jarchi in Gen. ii. 24. l Aben Ezra in ib. m R. Levi ben Gersom in ib. n Bereshit Rabba, sect. 18. fol. 15. 3. T. Hieros. Kiddushin, fol. 58. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
One body ( ). With the harlot. That union is for the harlot the same as with the wife. The words quoted from Ge 2:24 describing the sexual union of husband and wife, are also quoted and explained by Jesus in Mt 19:5f. which see for discussion of the translation Hebraism with use of .
Saith he (). Supply either (God) or (the Scripture).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
He that is joined [ ] . See on Luk 14:15. Compare Aeschylus : “The family has been glued [] to misfortune” (” Agamemnon, ” 1543). The verb is used Gen 2:24, Sept., of the relation of husband and wife : shall cleave. In Deu 10:20; Deu 11:22; Jer 13:11, of man’s cleaving to God.
To a harlot [ ] . Lit., the harlot. The article is significant : his harlot, or that one with whom he is sinning at the time.
Shall be one flesh [ ] . Lit., shall be unto one flesh : i e., from being two, shall pass into one. Hence Rev., rightly, shall become. Compare Eph 2:15.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) What? Know ye not, (he ouk oidate) For do you all not know, comprehend, recognize, or realize. Attention is called to the selfish, sensual, carnal ways and desires of the unregenerate.
2) That he which is joined to an harlot is one body. (hoti ho kollomenos te porne en soma estin) that the person joined or cohabiting, to a harlot or pornographic woman, is one body, in guilt and immoral lawlessness? (Gen 2:24)
3) For two saith he shall be one flesh. (esontai gar phesin hoi duo eis sarka nian). For will be says he (God) the duo (two) into one flesh. Two cohabiting in flesh shall be equally righteous or equally unrighteous in their act of oneness. Paul continues to “whale away at the error of two brothers in the same church who join in hurtful civil combat through seeking to gratify their own desires to the hurt of the church before the world.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
16. Know ye not that he that is joined to an harlot He brings out more fully the greatness of the injury that is done to Christ by the man that has intercourse with an harlot; for he becomes one body, and hence he tears away a member from Christ’s body. It is not certain in what sense he accommodates to his design the quotation which he subjoins from Gen 2:24. For if he quotes it to prove that two persons who commit fornication together become one flesh, he turns it aside from its true meaning to what is quite foreign to it. For Moses speaks there not of a base and prohibited cohabitation of a man and a woman, but of the marriage connection which God blesses. For he shows that that bond is so close and indissoluble, that it surpasses the relationship which subsists between a father and a son, which, assuredly, can have no reference to fornication. This consideration has led me sometimes to think, that this quotation is not brought forward to confirm the immediately preceding statement, but one that is more remote, in this way — “Moses says, that by the marriage connection husband and wife become one flesh, but he that is jointed to the Lord becomes not merely one flesh, but one spirit with him.” (357) And in this way the whole of this passage would tend to magnify the efficacy and dignity of the spiritual marriage which subsists between us and Christ.
If, however, any one does not altogether approve of this exposition, as being rather forced, I shall bring forward another. For as fornication is the corruption of a divine institution, it has some resemblance to it; and what is affirmed respecting the former, may to some extent be applied to the latter; not that it may be honored with the praises due to the former, (358) but for the purpose of expressing the more fully the heinousness of the sin. The expression, therefore, that they two become one flesh, is applicable in the true and proper sense to married persons only; but it is applied to fornicators, who are joined in a polluted and impure fellowship, meaning that contagion passes from the one to the other. (359) For there is no absurdity in saying that fornication bears some resemblance to the sacred connection of marriage, as being a corruption of it, as I have said; but the former has a curse upon it, and the other a blessing. Such is the correspondence between things that are contrasted in an antithesis. At the same time, I would prefer to understand it, in the first instance, of marriage, and then, in an improper sense, (360) of fornication, in this way — “God pronounces husband and wife to be one flesh, in order that neither of them may have connection with another flesh; so that the adulterer and adulteress do, also, become one flesh, and involve themselves in an accursed connection. And certainly this is more simple, and agrees better with the context.
(357) “ Mais nous sommes faits non seulement vne mesme chair auec le Seigneur, auquel nous adherons, mais aussi vn mesme esprit;” — “But we have become not merely one flesh with the Lord, to whom we are joined, but also one spirit.”
(358) “ Non que la paillardise soit digne de estre ornee des louanges qui appartienent a l’ordonnance du marriage;” — “Not that fornication is worthy to be honored with the praises that belong to the ordinance of marriage.
(359) “ Pour monstrer que la contagion et vilenie passe de l’vn a l’autre;” — “To show that contagion and pollution pass from the one to the other.”
(360) Our Author makes use of the adverb — abusive, (improperly,) referring, it is probable, to the figure of speech called by Quinctilian (8. 6) abusio — the same as catachresis (perversion.) — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(16) What?As if some one might question and resent the strength of the previous words, and wish them watered down. Do you not know that my strong assertion is true? It is not merely my statement; it is to be found in the Old Testament, Two shall be one flesh. This was originally (Gen. 2:24) applied to marriage, as showing the intimacy of that sacred union, but here St. Paul applies it to one aspect of a union which, in one respect, was identical with marriage. Of course the other parts of the Apostles argument do not apply to marriage, the union being a sacred one; two becoming one flesh in marriage is no degradation of a member of Christnay, it is a sacred illustration of the complete unity of Christ and His body the Church. (Comp. 1Co. 11:29, and Notes there.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. One body He holds the transient union to be, as it were, a brief Satanic marriage, in which the whole being of the guilty pair is lawlessly identified, and the members of each are members of both.
Saith he Saith God. St. Paul quotes words originally applied to holy marriage.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 6:16 . ] “Or if this (conveying, as it does, a negative to that question) still appears to you to admit of doubt, even after the statement of the nature of the case given in 1Co 6:15 , then ye must be ignorant that,” etc. This cannot correspond with the of 1Co 6:15 (Hofmann: “either the one or the other they must be ignorant of,” etc.), for . . . [986] manifestly refers to the conclusion from the preceding expressed in , and therefore is subordinated to the question answered shudderingly with . In 1Co 6:19 , too, the refers to what has just before been said.
.] who joins himself to ( ), indicating the union in licentious intercourse. Comp Sir 19:2 ; Gen 2:24 ; Ezr 4:20 .
] the harlot with whom he deals (article).
] is a single body ; previous to the he and the person concerned were two bodies, but he who is joined to the harlot an united subject is one body .
. . [988] ] Gen 2:24 (quoted from the LXX.) speaks, indeed, of wedded , not unwedded, intercourse; but Theodoret rightly points out the paritas rationis : .
] Who it is that says it, is self-evident, namely, God ; the utterances of the Scripture being His words, even when they may be spoken through another, as Gen 2:24 was through Adam. Comp on Mat 19:5 . Similarly Gal 3:16 ; Eph 4:8 ; Heb 8:5 ; 1Co 15:27 . , which is what is usually supplied here, would need to be suggested by the context, as in Rom 15:10 . Rckert arbitrarily prefers . [990]
] the two in question . The words are wanting in the Hebrew text, but are always quoted with it in the N. T. (Mat 19:5 ; Mar 10:8 ; Eph 5:31 ) after the LXX., and also by the Rabbins ( e.g. Beresh. Rabb. 18); an addition of later date in the interests of monogamy, which, although not expressly enjoined in the law, came by degrees to prevail, in accordance with its adumbration from the first in the history of the creation (Ewald, Alterth. p. 260 f.).
] . See on Mat 19:5 .
[986] . . . .
[988] . . . .
[990] To take it impersonally : “ it is said ,” as in 2Co 10:10 , according to the well-known usage in the classics, would be without warrant from any other instance of Paul’s quotations from Scripture . Comp. Winer, Gr. p. 486 [E. T. 656]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 117 [E. T. 134].
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Ver. 16. Is one body ] By a most strict but vicious and infamous bond (saith an interpreter), which is sufficient to untie or break any other bond, though lawful and holy, either corporal or spiritual.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16 .] Explanation and justification of the expression . , as De Wette well, “Do you think the expression . too strong?”
. “ ublicher Vusdrud fur Geschlechtsvereinigung. ” De Wette.
] with a harlot , generic: or which in fact amounts to the same, with ‘the harlot,’ presupposed in the hypothesis.
, viz. ‘ with her .’ The full construction would be . . . . , but he is here bringing out the criminality of the fornicator , and leaves the other out of view.
The citation is spoken of marriage ; but here as above (see on 1Co 6:13 ) he is treating merely of the physical act, which is the same in both cases.
, viz. GOD, Who is the speaker in the Scriptures: so in citing the same words, our Lord gives them to ( ) , Mat 19:5 . They were spoken by the mouth of Adam, but prophetically, divino afflatu . To render impersonal, ‘it says,’ ‘ heit es ,’ though justified by classical usage, see Winer, edn. 6, 58. 9, would, as Meyer remarks, be altogether without precedent in the citations of Paul. The words are not in the Heb., but in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and are found in the Rabbinical citations of the passage. See note on Mat 19:5 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 6:16 justifies the strong expression (1Co 6:15 ), implying that the alliance is a kind of incorporation: “Or (if you object to my putting it in this way), do you not know that he who cleaves to the harlot is one body (with her)?” (see parls.), qui agglutinatur scorto (Bz [984] ), indicates that sexual union constitutes a permanent bond between the parties. What has been done lives, morally, in both; neither is henceforth free of the other. The Divine sentence (uttered prophetically by Adam) which the Ap. quotes to this effect was pronounced upon the first wedded pair, and holds of every such union, whether lawful or unlawful honourably true (1Co 7:4 , Heb 13:4 ), or shamefully. In Eph 5:31 the same Scripture is cited at length, where the Ap. is making out the correspondence between wedlock and Christ’s union with the Church: in that place the spiritual union is treated as parl [985] to the natural union, where this follows the Divine order; here it stands out as prohibitory to a natural union which violates that order. Here only Paul uses the parenthetical (“says He,” sc. God ) in citing Scripture; it is common in Philo, and in the Ep. of Barnabas. (Hebraism) = .
[984] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).
[985] parallel.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
What? = Greek.
joined. Greek. kollao. See Luk 15:15.
for two, &c. The quotation is from Gen 2:24 (Septuagint)
one = into (Greek. eis. App-104.) one. Compare Mat 19:5, where the same idiom occurs.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16.] Explanation and justification of the expression . , as De Wette well, Do you think the expression . too strong?
. ublicher Vusdrud fur Geschlechtsvereinigung. De Wette.
] with a harlot, generic: or which in fact amounts to the same, with the harlot, presupposed in the hypothesis.
, viz. with her. The full construction would be . . . . , but he is here bringing out the criminality of the fornicator, and leaves the other out of view.
The citation is spoken of marriage; but here as above (see on 1Co 6:13) he is treating merely of the physical act, which is the same in both cases.
, viz. GOD, Who is the speaker in the Scriptures: so in citing the same words, our Lord gives them to () , Mat 19:5. They were spoken by the mouth of Adam, but prophetically, divino afflatu. To render impersonal, it says, heit es, though justified by classical usage, see Winer, edn. 6, 58. 9, would, as Meyer remarks, be altogether without precedent in the citations of Paul. The words are not in the Heb., but in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and are found in the Rabbinical citations of the passage. See note on Mat 19:5.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 6:16. , he who is joined to a harlot) A syllepsis,[54] i.e. [by this figure, there being mentally understood] the harlot and he who is joined to her; for so the predicate, is one body, appropriately is in accordance [with such a double subject]; and the expression, these two [ ], agrees with this view.-, they shall be) This is said in the first instance of husbands and wives; and, by parity of reasoning, is applied to those, who become one flesh without a conjugal covenant. By covenant the woman becomes the wife of the husband before the husband is joined (carnally) to her; and the reason, why their union is indissoluble, chiefly rests on this circumstance; otherwise even the union of men with harlots would also be indissoluble.
[54] See Appendix.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 6:16
1Co 6:16
Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body?-When a man takes a woman unto himself they become one flesh.
for, The twain, saith he, shall become one flesh.-Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Gen 2:24). [That these words refer originally to marriage does not lessen their appropriateness here. For they teach that the union of the sexes in the marriage relation was divinely ordained at the creation of the race, in order to unite husband and wife so closely that in them even personal distinction should in some respects cease. Intercourse with harlots desecrates this divine relation to a means of sin. Therefore in a Christian, it robs Christ of a member of his own body in order to place it in union with one utterly opposed to him, a union so close that they are one flesh.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
an harlot: Gen 34:31, Gen 38:15, Gen 38:24, Jdg 16:1, Mat 21:31, Mat 21:32, Heb 11:31
for: Gen 2:24, Mat 19:5, Mat 19:6, Mar 10:8, Eph 5:31
Reciprocal: Isa 40:28 – thou not known Hos 4:14 – for Rom 6:3 – Know 1Co 1:1 – through 1Co 3:16 – Know 1Co 6:9 – Know 1Co 6:19 – What Heb 8:10 – I will be
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 6:16. We know the apostle was not using that statement in some special or strained sense, for he supports it by quoting the words of God and Christ where we know the language applies to the intimate relation of the sexes, the only “ceremony” the Lord ever gave as a basis of marriage. (See Gen 2:24; Mat 19:5-6.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 6:16. What, know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body! for the twain, saith he, shall become one flesh. As the sexes, by marriage, become one natural life, an abhorred unity of nature is formed by the action here referred to.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The sense is, “That as wedlock makes man and wife one body lawfully, so fornication makes the man and the harlot one body sinfully; all the difference is in the morality of the act, but the species or kind of act is the same: thus the fornicator and the harlot are one flesh; but he that is joined to the Lord, namely, by faith and love, hath a nearer and more noble union than that of flesh, for he is one spirit with Christ; not essentially and substantially one, but mystically and spiritually. Christ and the sincere believer are led and guided, actuated and influenced, by the same Spirit; therefore take heed what you do, for in making your bodies the members of an harlot, you dissolve the union betwixt Christ and them.
Learn from hence, How closely and intimately believers are united unto Jesus Christ: they are nearer than one flesh; they are one spirit with him, they have both one Father, one house, one home, one heart, one interest, one acquaintance. Happy they who are thus joined to the Lord, for they are one spirit.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 16, 17. Or know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body [with her]; for the two, it is said, shall be one flesh. 17. And he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit [with Him].
The , or, is certainly authentic; as always it signifies, Or indeed, if you deny what I have just said, are you then ignorant that…? The proof of the truth of the expression used (members of an harlot) is given by means of the Biblical words, Gen 2:24. Are these words in the narrative of Genesis the continuation of Adam’s discourse, or a remark added by the author himself, as happens in several other cases (Gen 10:9; Gen 15:6; Gen 32:32; see Hofmann)? It matters little; for the declaration can have value in the eyes of the sacred historian only in so far as it is the expression of a Divine truth.
The reg. with her is omitted in Greek after the word one body. This ellipsis arises from the fact that the nominative and the dative are morally regarded as forming one and the same logical subject of the proposition. The words , the two, were added to the original text by the LXX., whom St. Paul here follows.
The subject of the verb , says he, may be either Adam, or Moses, or Scripture, or God Himself; or finally, as is shown by Heinrici, the verb may be a simple formula of quotation like our: It is said. This form is frequently found in Philo. The expression one flesh finds its confirmation in the extraordinary fact that from this union there may proceed a new personality. Therein is contained, for the reflecting mind, the undeniable proof of the profoundly mysterious character of such a union; it appears like the continuation of the creative act.
Vv. 17 is not, as has sometimes been thought, foreign to the argument as a whole. As 1Co 6:16 justifies by a Biblical quotation the strong expression of 1Co 6:15 : Shall I make them the members of an harlot? so 1Co 6:17, framed as it were on the words of Genesis, justifies the equally strong expression of 1Co 6:15 : Taking the members of Christ; comp. 1Co 15:45.
We again find here the ellipsis of 1Co 6:16; the with Him is understood after the words one spirit, as if to say that the believer’s union with Christ culminates in the existence of one and the same spirit, and consequently in the possession and direction by Christ of the believer’s whole person, soul and body.
According to Holsten (p. 466 seq.), the assimilation of these two unions is so untenable logically, that 1Co 6:15-17 can only be an ancient gloss intended to remove the obscurity of 1Co 6:13. I think it is better to seek to penetrate the depth of the apostolic thought than arbitrarily to recompose the text according to our own ideas.
Under the sway of this holy view (1Co 6:17), the apostle, at the thought of the crime of fornication, utters, as it were, a cry of horror (1Co 6:18 a); then he finishes his demonstration.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body? [as if in Satanic marriage] for, The twain, saith he [Gen 2:24; Mat 19:5; Eph 5:31], shall become one flesh.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 16
Two, saith he, &c. This was originally spoken of the union between the husband and wife, (Genesis 2:24,) but is here applied to a different case.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 6:16. A truth which the readers ought to know, justifying the foregoing words.
Is one body: therefore, he who commits fornication makes his body a part, or member, of a harlot’s body.
For etc.: proof of is one body.
The two etc.: word for word from Gen 2:24, LXX.
Says he: Adam, or the author of Genesis. Probably the former, moved by prophetic impulse on seeing Eve. But to Paul both were invested with divine authority. So Rom 3:19. That these words refer originally to marriage, does not lessen their appropriateness here. For they teach that the marriage relation was divinely instituted at the creation of the race, in order to unite husband and wife so closely that in them even personal distinction should in some respects cease. Intercourse with harlots desecrates this divine ordinance to a means of sin. Therefore, in a Christian, it robs Christ of a member of His own body in order to place it in union with one utterly opposed to Christ, a union so close that it implies a cessation in some sense of personal distinction.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
6:16 {12} What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for {i} two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
(12) A proof of the same argument: a harlot and Christ are completely contrary, so are the flesh and the Spirit. Therefore he that is one with a harlot (which is done by sexual intercourse with their bodies) cannot be one with Christ, which unity is pure and spiritual.
(i) Moses does not speak these words about fornication, but about marriage: but seeing that fornication is the corruption of marriage, and both of them are a carnal and fleshly copulation, we cannot say that the apostle abuses his testimony. Again, Moses does not have this word “two”, but it is very well expressed both here and in Mat 19:5 , because he speaks only of man and wife: whereupon the opinion of those that vouch it to be lawful to have many wives is overthrown: for he that companies with many, is broken as it were into many parts.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Paul urged his readers not to think of sexual intercourse as simply a physical linking of two people for the duration of their act. God views intercourse as involving the whole person, not just the body. It is the most intimate sharing that human beings experience. A spiritual union takes place. Sexual relations affect the inner unseen conditions of the individuals involved very deeply. This is what is in view in the reference to two people becoming "one flesh" in Gen 2:24. Consequently it is improper to put sexual relations on the same level of significance as eating food.