In this context πνεύματι (pneumati) most immediately denotes the speaker's human spirit as engaged in glossolalic prayer, rather than the Holy Spirit as the direct grammatical referent. Paul has already stated, “if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful” (14:14), and he immediately distinguishes praying and singing “with the spirit” from doing so “with the mind” (14:15). The dative is therefore best taken as a dative of sphere or manner: the blessing is uttered in the mode of spiritual, tongue-speaking prayer, without intelligible content for the gathered assembly. This reading does not detach the act from the Holy Spirit. The gifts discussed in chapters 12 through 14 are distributed and empowered by the Spirit of God, and genuine tongue-speech belongs to that sphere. Yet Paul’s contrast in 14:14-16 concerns the relation between the speaker’s πνεῦμα (pneuma) and νοῦς (nous, “mind”), and the resulting ability of others to understand and join the prayer. To construe πνεύματι as exclusively “by the Holy Spirit” weakens that deliberate contrast and leaves unexplained why Paul urges the same speaker to pray with both spirit and mind. The verb εὐλογῇς (eulogēs, present active subjunctive), “bless” or “give praise,” is then further identified as “your thanksgiving” (τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ). Paul does not criticize the thanksgiving as false or spiritually invalid. Its deficiency is congregational: the uninformed hearer cannot say the confirming “Amen” because he does not know what is being said. The verse thus advances the larger argument that intelligibility is necessary when prayer and praise are offered in the assembled church.

Paul’s conditional does not concede that the Corinthians may possess some independent, unreceived ground for boasting. The clause εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔλαβες, “but if indeed you received [it],” assumes the truth established by the preceding rhetorical question: everything on which a Corinthian might base superiority has been received. The εἰ with the aorist indicative ἔλαβες (from λαμβάνω, lambanō, “receive”) introduces a condition treated as fulfilled for the sake of argument. The καί is naturally intensive or confirmatory, yielding the sense, “if, as indeed you did, receive it.” The argument moves in a tight sequence. τί δὲ ἔχεις ὃ οὐκ ἔλαβες asks whether any possession or qualification exists that was not received; the expected answer is none. Paul then exposes the contradiction: if the possession was received, why does one boast ὡς μὴ λαβών, “as though not having received”? The final λαβών is an aorist active participle, describing the imagined posture of one who acts as a person whose advantages originated in himself. In its immediate setting, Paul addresses the gifts, knowledge, social claims, and ecclesial standing by which the Corinthians had aligned themselves with one teacher against another (4:6). The statement therefore bears directly upon their spiritual and ministerial privileges, including the capacities that had become occasions for factional pride. Yet Paul frames the principle comprehensively, “what do you have?” The force is theological: no creaturely distinction can supply a basis for autonomous boasting, since every genuine advantage stands under God’s prior giving. This accords with the preceding insistence that ministers are servants and stewards, while God alone gives growth (3:5-7).

The combination μή οὐκ ἔχομεν introduces a rhetorical question that expects an affirmative answer: Paul and his fellow workers certainly do possess the authority in view. English "Do we not have authority?" represents the sense well, though the δύο negative particles should not be treated as a simple logical double negative. In interrogative usage, μή (mē) helps mark the question as one framed to elicit the expected response, while οὐκ (ouk) negates the verbal expression, "do we not have." Paul therefore presses the Corinthians to concede a point that his subsequent argument will establish from several directions. The present active indicative ἔχομεν (echomen, "we have") states a continuing possession, and ἐξουσίαν (exousian) denotes a rightful authority or entitlement rather than bare ability. The aorist infinitives φαγεῖν and πεῖν, "to eat" and "to drink," express the concrete exercise of that entitlement. Within vv. 3-14, especially the analogies of soldiers, vine-growers, and shepherds, the eating and drinking refer to receiving ordinary material provision from those served in the gospel. The sharp interrogative form is integral to Paul’s defense: he does not ask whether the Corinthians might voluntarily offer hospitality, but whether Christ’s apostles possess a legitimate claim to sustenance in the course of their ministry. Verse 12 will clarify that Paul had declined to make use of this acknowledged authority at Corinth; its nonuse did not nullify its reality.

Paul’s question stresses uncertainty, not a promise that the believing spouse will bring the unbeliever to faith. The construction εἰ (ei) with the future indicative σώσεις (sōseis, “you will save”) functions here within an interrogative: “what do you know whether you will save?” It raises an outcome concealed from the Christian spouse rather than supplying a confident prediction. The perfect οἶδας (oidas, “you know”) has present force, and τί οἶδας asks what basis of knowledge the spouse possesses concerning the other’s future salvation. The repeated question addresses wife and husband alike, excluding any gendered asymmetry in Paul’s reasoning. The verb σῴζω (sōzō) ordinarily denotes salvation in its final and redemptive sense in this letter, as in 1 Corinthians 1:18, 9:22, and 10:33. Paul therefore does not mean simply that a wife may preserve her husband or a husband may preserve his wife from marital dissolution. Yet the language does not make one spouse the efficient savior of the other. God alone saves; the Christian spouse may be an instrument through whom God brings the gospel to the unbeliever, a prospect consistent with the concern for the other’s salvation in 1 Corinthians 9:22 and with the evangelistic witness envisioned in 1 Peter 3:1-2. In context, verse 16 qualifies the preceding teaching. Verses 12-14 forbid a believer to initiate divorce when the unbelieving spouse is willing to remain, and they affirm the covenantal holiness associated with such a household. Verse 15, however, permits peaceful separation when the unbeliever departs. Verse 16 neither reverses that permission nor turns the hope of conversion into an absolute ground for retaining a marriage at all costs. Its point is that the believer cannot claim knowledge either that continued marriage will certainly result in conversion or that separation necessarily forecloses it. The outcome rests in God’s saving purpose, while the apostle’s stated marital directives remain governed by the unbeliever’s willingness to live peacefully with the believer.

Paul commends the decision to maintain the existing unmarried arrangement only where it is a settled and free decision, rather than one imposed by circumstances or driven by an inability to act otherwise. The expression μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην (mē echōn anankēn), “not having necessity,” does not describe a universal Christian obligation to remain unmarried. In the immediate context, it denotes the absence of a compelling pressure that would make marriage appropriate or necessary, whether arising from sexual desire and the risk of impropriety (v. 36), from the woman’s own circumstances, or from other concrete obligations attending the relationship. Paul’s counsel in vv. 36-38 is consequently pastoral and situational, not a rule that elevates continued virginity above marriage as an absolute norm. The contrasting phrase ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος (exousian de echei peri tou idiou thelēmatos) means that the man possesses freedom of decision with respect to his own purpose. Ἐξουσία (exousia) commonly denotes rightful authority or liberty, and here it excludes decisions made under coercion, social compulsion, or an unavoidable moral exigency. It cannot mean that the man has an unrestricted right to dispose of another person contrary to her interests, for Paul has already qualified his discussion by the demands of sexual holiness, mutual marital obligation, and peace within the Christian calling (7:2-5, 35). The authority in view is the freedom to determine whether the contemplated marriage should proceed under circumstances in which he is responsible for that decision. The perfect verbs strengthen the portrayal of deliberate resolution. He has “stood” (ἕστηκεν, hestēken) firm in heart and “has decided” (κέκρικεν, kekriken) in his own heart: both forms portray a decision reached and remaining in force. “Heart” (kardia) refers to the center of judgment and intention, rather than to private feeling alone. Thus, the one who resolves, without compelling contrary circumstances, “to keep” (τηρεῖν, tērein) his virgin in her unmarried state “will do well” (καλῶς ποιήσει). Paul grants moral approval to this course while preserving marriage as equally legitimate and, in the next verse, explicitly good.

The plural γλώσσαις (glōssais, dative plural of glōssa) does not imply that a single speaker uttered several languages simultaneously. It is the ordinary plural by which Paul denotes the phenomenon or varieties of tongue-speech generally, much as 14:18 can speak of Paul speaking “in tongues” more than all the Corinthians. The present participle λαλῶν (lalōn, “speaking”) describes the manner accompanying the hypothetical visit: Paul imagines arriving while engaged in tongue-speech, rather than bringing intelligible communication to the congregation. The dative γλώσσαις is best understood as a dative of means or manner, “speaking by means of tongues” or “in tongues.” Its plural coheres with the chapter’s recurrent language: tongues may be variously exercised (14:5, 13, 18, 23), and their diversity corresponds to Paul’s illustration of many distinguishable sounds and languages in 14:7-11. Yet the point of v. 6 is not the number or linguistic identity of the tongues. Even Paul’s apostolic presence would yield no congregational benefit (ὠφελήσω) if his speech remained uninterpreted and therefore unintelligible. The plural thus names the broad practice whose public use Paul regulates, while the contrast falls upon intelligible revelation, knowledge, prophecy, and teaching as communications capable of edifying the assembled church.

The universal ἕκαστος (“each one”) states a general ecclesial principle rather than an absolute ban on every alteration of circumstance. Paul has just directed the churches to recognize that God’s call comes to persons within concrete circumstances (7:17), and verse 20 compresses that principle into a maxim. The present imperative μενέτω (menetō, “let him remain”) calls for continued faithfulness in the condition in which conversion found the person; it does not declare every subsequent change intrinsically unlawful. The immediate context prevents an absolutist reading. The cases of circumcision and uncircumcision in vv. 18-19 establish that covenant standing before God is not improved by acquiring or removing a bodily ethnic marker. The slave addressed in v. 21 is not required to reject freedom if it becomes available, although Paul refuses to make emancipation the condition of Christian obedience. The ensuing discussion of marriage similarly distinguishes between remaining in one’s state where possible and recognizing legitimate changes in circumstances. Thus “each one” extends the principle beyond the two examples, while the surrounding qualifications show that Paul opposes restless attempts to secure spiritual advantage through altered social circumstances, not lawful changes as such. The repeated dative phrase, ἐν τῇ κλήσει ᾗ ἐκλήθη, followed by ἐν ταύτῃ, identifies the relevant sphere as the condition accompanying God’s effective call. The aorist passive ἐκλήθη (“was called”) points ultimately to God as the caller, while the demonstrative ταύτῃ (“this”) resumes that concrete condition. Paul’s concern is that the divine call relativizes distinctions of ethnicity, servitude, and marital situation: these conditions neither obstruct communion with Christ nor confer a superior standing within the church.

The ἵνα clause is best taken as the content of Paul’s appeal rather than as a statement of its purpose. In v. 15 Paul has introduced an urgent request, παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, and ἵνα commonly follows such verbs in Hellenistic Greek to express the action requested. Thus the sense is, “I urge you ... that you also submit yourselves,” rather than, “I urge you in order that you may submit.” The construction has an exhortatory force comparable to an indirect imperative. The present middle-passive subjunctive ὑποτάσσησθε (hypotassēsthe) expresses a willing placing of oneself under the recognized service and leadership of others. The pronoun ὑμεῖς is emphatic, and καί (“also”) establishes a fitting reciprocity: the household of Stephanas had devoted itself to service of the saints (v. 15), and the congregation is therefore urged to acknowledge such servants by yielding to their ministry. The command is then extended beyond that household to τοῖς τοιούτοις (“such persons”) and to every person characterized by συνεργοῦντι καὶ κοπιῶντι, “working together and laboring.” The ἵνα clause therefore gives the concrete burden of Paul’s appeal, grounded in the demonstrated service described in the preceding context.

Paul identifies love for God as the decisive reality that exposes the inadequacy of the Corinthians’ claimed knowledge. The conditional clause, εἰ δέ τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν θεόν (ei de tis agapa ton theon, “but if anyone loves God”), shifts from the abstract claims of vv. 1–2 to the person whose relation to God is genuine. Ἀγαπᾷ is a present active indicative of ἀγαπάω (agapaō), describing an ongoing disposition rather than a momentary religious affection. The demonstrative οὗτος (“this one”) gives emphasis: this is the person whose standing is established by God’s knowing him. This does not detach love for God from the concern for fellow believers introduced in v. 1. In the immediate argument, γνώσις (gnōsis, “knowledge”) inflates its possessor, whereas ἀγάπη (agapē, “love”) builds up the community. Love toward God is the fundamental orientation from which the edification of others follows; a supposed theological knowledge that disregards a brother’s conscience cannot sustain the self-assured claims criticized in vv. 1–2. Paul therefore does not substitute private devotion for corporate responsibility. He roots the required regard for the weak in a Godward love that is itself authenticated by God’s gracious recognition. The wording also accords with Paul’s wider pattern of treating love for God as a mark of those who belong to him (cf. 2:9; 16:22). Yet the concluding perfect passive, ἔγνωσται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (egnōstai hyp’ autou, “has been known by him”), prevents love from becoming an autonomous human qualification. The one who loves God is the one whom God has already and enduringly acknowledged as his own. Thus v. 3 supplies the theological ground for the ethical correction that follows: genuine knowledge of God bears the character of love because it rests upon God’s prior and abiding knowledge of the believer.

Paul places his arrival in Corinth after, rather than during, his traversal of Macedonia. The construction ὅταν (hotan, “when”) with the aorist subjunctive διέλθω (dielthō, aorist active subjunctive, first singular, from dierchomai) expresses a future contingency viewed as completed in relation to the main verb: “I will come to you when I have passed through Macedonia.” The aorist does not chiefly mark a brief journey, but presents the passing through Macedonia as a whole, bounded event prior to his coming to Corinth. This temporal sequencing is clarified by v. 6, where Paul expects to remain with the Corinthians for some time, perhaps even through the winter. Macedonia was therefore not proposed as a detour on the way to a short Corinthian stop; it was the intervening stage of an itinerary whose intended destination for an extended stay was Corinth. The repeated Μακεδονίαν (Makedonian) and διέρχομαι (dierchomai) in the explanatory clause, “for I am passing through Macedonia,” identify the route as a settled feature of Paul’s present plan, while the future ἐλεύσομαι (eleusomai, future middle indicative) keeps the Corinthian visit itself in prospect. The wording should not be pressed into an absolute declaration that Paul could not reach Corinth until every Macedonian ministry had concluded in a comprehensive sense. Travel plans remained subject to the Lord’s will, as v. 7 explicitly states. Yet within the itinerary Paul describes, the grammar plainly distinguishes the completed Macedonian passage from the subsequent Corinthian visit. This accounts for translations such as “when I have gone through Macedonia” or “after I pass through Macedonia,” rather than the less precise “when I go through Macedonia.”

Paul’s πρῶτον μέν (“first indeed” or “in the first place”) introduces the first major defect associated with the Corinthians’ assemblies, without requiring that a corresponding δεύτερον δέ (“secondly”) appear later in the immediate discussion. The accusative neuter πρῶτον functions adverbially, while μέν marks the beginning of an ordered presentation. Paul first addresses the schisms manifest when the church gathers (vv. 18-19), then exposes their concrete expression in the disorderly observance of the Lord’s Supper (vv. 20-34). The latter is not a wholly unrelated second item, but the practical setting in which the former becomes scandalously visible. Greek writers could employ μέν without an expressed δέ, especially where the contrast or continuation is supplied by the development of the argument rather than by a formal paired particle. Thus πρῶτον does not prove that a lost or omitted “secondly” must have stood in the text. Nor does it most naturally refer to the subsequent subjects of chapters 12-14, though those chapters continue Paul’s treatment of corporate worship and spiritual gifts. The immediate context supplies the intended sequence: first, the existence of divisions in the gathered church; then, the conduct at the communal meal that demonstrates those divisions and calls forth apostolic correction. The wording also gives corporate specificity to Paul’s charge. Συνερχομένων ὑμῶν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, a present middle participle with the genitive plural pronoun, denotes their assembling as the church rather than mere private disputes among individual Corinthian believers. The σχίσματα (“divisions”) therefore concern fractures within the congregation’s public fellowship, a reality that makes their proclaimed unity in the one Lord’s Supper internally contradictory.

Paul uses κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (kata tou theou) in its normal adversative sense, “against God,” because a denial of resurrection would render the apostolic proclamation a false assertion about God's own saving act. The phrase does not mean simply that the apostles gave testimony concerning God. They had publicly testified (ἐμαρτυρήσαμεν, emartyrēsamen, aorist active indicative) that God “raised” Christ (ἤγειρεν, ēgeiren, aorist active indicative). If that event did not occur, their witness would falsely ascribe an action to God and would therefore stand against his truth and honor. The argument depends upon Christ's real solidarity with the dead. Paul states the consequence with εἴπερ ἄρα (eiper ara), “if indeed, then,” pressing the premise assumed by those who denied a general resurrection: if dead persons are not raised (νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, nekroi ouk egeirontai, present passive indicative), Christ, who truly died, could not have been raised either. Thus the issue is not confined to an error in apostolic speculation about life after death. It would make the foundational apostolic testimony a calumny against God, since the apostles had identified God as the one who vindicated the crucified Messiah by raising him. This wording also advances the sequence of vv. 12-19. The denial of resurrection first destroys the coherence of Christian preaching and faith (vv. 13-14), then exposes the authorized witnesses to the resurrection as false witnesses against the God whom they proclaim (v. 15). Paul thereby treats the resurrection as an objective divine act, not as a religious conviction whose meaning could survive its historical denial.

The expression ἐν Χριστῷ ἠλπικότες ἐσμέν presents Christian hope as an established and continuing condition: believers "have placed their hope" in Christ and remain those whose hope is fixed in him. The perfect active participle ἠλπικότες (from elpizō), joined with the present form of eimi, ἐσμέν, is periphrastic in force. It highlights a prior act of hope whose result endures into the present. Paul is therefore speaking of the settled identity of Christians as those who have entrusted their future to Christ, rather than of a momentary expectation or a merely subjective religious aspiration. This grammatical emphasis sharpens the argument developed in 15:12-18. If there is no resurrection of the dead, and thus Christ himself has not been raised, the believers' enduring hope has been invested in one whose saving work would have no eschatological consummation. The condition is not a denial that Christians presently possess benefits in Christ, since Paul elsewhere affirms forgiveness, reconciliation, and new life as present realities. Rather, the adjective μόνον restricts their hope to "this life," the present mortal order, in the hypothetical case that resurrection is false. In that case, the more fully Christians have grounded their lives in the crucified and risen Christ, the more pitiable they would be, because their hope would terminate at death and their apostolic suffering and self-denial would rest upon a false proclamation. The perfect construction thus serves Paul's reductio: Christian hope is inherently resurrection-shaped, and without the future resurrection its continuing present stance would be tragically misplaced.

The citation formula γέγραπται, “it stands written,” directly introduces the statement concerning the first Adam; the designation and description of the last Adam are Paul’s Spirit-authorized antithetical exposition of that text within the history of redemption. Genesis 2:7, reflected closely in the wording ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, records that Adam “became a living soul” or living creature. Paul inserts πρῶτος, “first,” and identifies this man explicitly as Adam, since Genesis supplies the initial member of the comparison that governs the argument of 15:21-22 and 15:42-49. Genesis does not, at the level of its immediate wording, predict a figure called “the last Adam.” Paul derives that designation from Adam’s representative place in the biblical order. Adam is the first humanity’s covenantal head and the source from whom natural, mortal life is propagated; Christ, the incarnate and risen Messiah, is the eschatological head of the new humanity. The adjective ἔσχατος means “last” in the sense of final and climactic, rather than simply second in a numerical sequence. Christ’s resurrection establishes the definitive humanity beyond which no further covenantal head will arise. The parallel clauses therefore contain both citation and apostolic inference. Adam became εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, a living person who received life; Christ is described as εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν, “a life-giving spirit,” where ζῳοποιοῦν is a present active participle denoting the risen Christ’s ongoing power to impart resurrection life. The contrast is developed explicitly in vv. 46-49: the first man belongs to the earth and bears its mortality, whereas the last Adam belongs to heaven and communicates the life appropriate to the resurrection age.

Paul deliberately grounds his statement in both the primal relation of Eve to Adam and the continuing relation of men to women. The articular singulars ἡ γυνή (hē gynē, “the woman/wife”) and ὁ ἀνήρ (ho anēr, “the man/husband”) first recall Genesis 2, where the woman was formed from the man. In the immediate preceding verse Paul has explicitly said that woman is “from man” (ἐκ ἀνδρός), language that closely reflects the creation narrative and its sequence. Thus the first clause of v. 12 is not an abstract assertion about female dependence but a reference to the unique origin of the first woman. The second clause broadens the frame through the ordinary course of human generation: “the man is through the woman” (ὁ ἀνὴρ διὰ τῆς γυναικός). Although Adam did not come through Eve, every subsequent male, including Paul himself, enters the world through a woman. The singular therefore functions representatively, moving from Adam and Eve to the sexes as constituted in creation and procreation. Paul’s point in vv. 8-12 is neither to erase the creation order nor to permit that order to become a ground for masculine self-sufficiency. The final πάντὰ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (“but all things are from God”) places both the original formation of woman and the ongoing birth of men, indeed the entire created order, under God’s sovereign creative source. The argument preserves differentiation between man and woman while decisively denying any autonomous status to either.

Paul presents the principle of v. 17 as a general apostolic directive, rather than as advice tailored only to the Corinthians’ particular disputes. The present middle indicative διατάσσομαι (diatassomai, “I direct” or “I prescribe”) carries the sense of an authoritative ordering. Its object is supplied by the preceding clause: each person is to continue to live (περιπατείτω, present active imperative of peripateō) in accordance with the portion the Lord has allotted and the condition in which God called him. The repeated οὕτως (“thus,” “in this manner”) binds the universal directive to that stated principle. The phrase ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις (“in all the churches”) establishes that Corinth is not free to treat its own ascetic or socially disruptive impulses as a superior form of spirituality. Paul invokes his consistent apostolic ordering of the congregations, as elsewhere when he appeals to the common practice of the churches (cf. 11:16; 14:33). This is not an appeal to bare custom detached from doctrine. The rule rests upon God’s effective call and providential distribution, and it is immediately developed through the cases of circumcision and slavery in vv. 18-24. At the same time, the directive does not forbid every lawful alteration of circumstance, as v. 21 explicitly allows a slave to use an available opportunity for freedom. Its universal force concerns the believer’s fundamental posture toward the call of God: present circumstances do not constitute an obstacle to faithful service, nor do they require abandonment as though holiness depended upon a change of station.

Paul limits the public exercise of tongues to two speakers, or exceptionally three, in a single assembly; he does not authorize persons to speak in pairs. The phrase κατὰ δύο (kata duo) has a distributive sense, "in groups of two" or, idiomatically in this setting, "two at a time" as a numerical measure. Yet the following qualification, καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος (kai ana meros), "and one by one" or "in turn," excludes simultaneous speech and establishes that the two or three are successive individual participants. The masculine τρεῖς (treis, "three") is naturally understood by ellipsis from τις (tis, "anyone") in the opening clause: two or three persons are in view. The expression τὸ πλεῖστον (to pleiston), literally "the most," sets an upper limit rather than a recommended average. Paul therefore permits a narrowly ordered exercise of the gift amid the wider meeting described in vv. 26-33. The restriction accords with his governing concern that all things occur "for building up" (v. 26) and "decently and in order" (v. 40). Since each utterance must also be interpreted (v. 27), the limitation prevents the gathering from being overtaken by unintelligible speech and preserves space for intelligible prophecy and instruction. The command is directed to the conduct of the assembled church, not to a numerical limitation upon private use of the gift.

Paul’s reciprocal formulation establishes that the physical body belongs to Christ’s redemptive purpose and that Christ, in turn, is positively ordered toward the body’s preservation, sanctification, and resurrection. The dative phrases, "for sexual immorality" (tē porneia) and "for the Lord" (tō kyriō), express intended relation or destination. Sexual immorality therefore contradicts the body’s proper end, whereas the body is claimed for the Lord. The corresponding assertion, "the Lord [is] for the body," does not make Christ subordinate to human bodily desires; it declares his saving concern for embodied persons. The immediate sequel defines this concern: God raised the Lord and will also raise believers through his power (v. 14). The body, unlike the stomach and foods in the preceding contrast, is not destined simply for abolition. It is included in the future resurrection and presently stands within union with the risen Christ, as vv. 15-17 make explicit: believers’ bodies are members of Christ. Paul thus rejects the premise that bodily acts are morally detached from one’s relation to the Lord. The Lord’s relation to the body includes his lordship over it, his incorporation of it into his own life, and his eschatological purpose to raise it. This reciprocal language grounds the ensuing prohibition of porneia in Christology and resurrection rather than in contempt for the body.

Paul deliberately identifies the crucified Christ, whom he preaches, as God’s power and God’s wisdom. The accusative Χριστόν (Christon) continues the implied verb from v. 23, “we preach”: to the called Paul and his fellow heralds preach “Christ, God’s power and God’s wisdom.” The two accusatives, δύναμιν (dynamin) and σοφίαν (sophian), stand in apposition to Χριστόν and characterize the person proclaimed, rather than describing only the effects of Christian preaching. The scandal of the cross is therefore not overcome by setting aside the crucified Messiah for a more respectable religious philosophy; in the crucified Christ God has enacted and disclosed his saving power and wisdom. The repeated genitive θεοῦ (theou), “of God,” marks power and wisdom as belonging to and proceeding from God. In this context it contrasts sharply with human assessments: what Jews seek in signs and Greeks seek in wisdom is truly found in Christ, though in a form judged weak and foolish by the world (vv. 22-25). Paul does not mean that Christ is an abstract divine quality or a substitute name for an impersonal attribute. Christ is the Messiah whom Paul proclaims, and in him God’s redemptive power is operative and God’s saving wisdom is made known. The statement anticipates 1 Corinthians 1:30, where Christ Jesus “became wisdom from God” for believers, and it coheres with the wider apostolic confession that the Son reveals and accomplishes the Father’s saving purpose without confusing the persons of the Godhead.

Paul deliberately begins with the husband's duty toward his wife, thereby refusing to frame sexual relations in marriage as a wife's service rendered at a husband's demand. The sentence opens with τῇ γυναικί, "to the wife," placing her before the subject, ὁ ἀνήρ (anēr, "husband"). The present active imperative ἀποδιδότω (apodidotō, "let him render" or "let him fulfill") first charges the husband with the continuing discharge of the marital obligation. Only then does Paul add, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἡ γυνὴ τῷ ἀνδρί, "and likewise also the wife to the husband." The order is therefore neither accidental nor a concession to a husband's presumed prerogative. This formulation accords with the immediate setting. In v. 2 Paul has already spoken symmetrically of each man having his own wife and each woman her own husband; in v. 4 he will state with striking balance that neither spouse has autonomous authority over his or her own body, since each belongs to the other in the marriage covenant. In a social world in which the husband's interests could readily govern the terms of marriage, the initial imperative directed to the husband gives concrete expression to Paul's reciprocal construal of conjugal life. The following ὁμοίως (homoiōs, "likewise") establishes genuine correspondence, not an inferior imitation: the wife is addressed as an accountable moral subject, while the husband is bound by the same marital claim he might otherwise have asserted against her. The verse thus neither establishes a hierarchy of sexual claims nor dissolves the distinction between husband and wife. Its sequence highlights the husband's obligation at the point where prevailing assumptions might have minimized it, and its balanced second clause confirms that the obligation belongs to both spouses within the one marriage.