7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
1/22
[JSNT55 (1994) 55-75]
THAT WE MIGHT NOT CRAVE EVIL'
THE STRUCTURE AND ARGUMENT OF 1 CORINTHIANS 10.1-13
Gary D. Collier
University of Denver/Iliff School of Theology
Denver, CO 80217
It has now been more than a decade since JSNT published Wayne A.
Meeks's important article identifying 1 Cor. 10.1-13 as a 'homily...a liter
ary unit, very carefully composed prior to its use in its present context'.1
According to Meeks, the pericope was originally a self-contained unit, itwas almost surely of Christian composition, and some or all of it was
most likely written by Paul prior to 1 Corinthians.2 In what follows, I
would like to explore this matter further, offering a fresh evaluation of
the pericope and its function in the context of 1 Corinthians.
1. W.A. Meeks, '"And Rose up to Play": Midrash and Paraenesis in
1 Corinthians 10.1-22', JSNT16 (1982), p. 65. Since the beginning ofthe twentiethcentury, scholars have shown an increasing tendency to regard 1 Cor. 10.1-13, either
partially or wholly, as an independent pre-existent literary unit. Johannes Weiss
designated w. 1-5 'ein Midrasch' (DerErste Korintherbrief [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1910], p. 250); Ulrich Luz argued that the pericope was based on an
earlier midrash (Das Geschichtsverstndnis des Paulus [BEvT, 49; Munich: Chr.
Kaiser Verlag, 1968], pp. 117-23); CK. Barrett pointed to the phrase 'our fathers'
(v. 1) as possibly betraying that Paul 'was quoting, without modification, an existing
Exodus midrash' (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [HNTC;
New York: Harper & Row, 1968], p. 220); Hans Conzelmann referred to the wholepericope when he cited the abruptness with which it appears in its present context: 'At
fi i h hi i b ll f i h l i f
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
2/22
56 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994)
1 An Independent Pericope
For Meeks, by far the most significant indication that Paul has at leastinfluenced (if not composed) the homily is the quotation m 7 of Exod
32 6 on idolatry
Meeks suggests that 'Paul himself has added this reference
since "idolatry" is the immediate issue under discussion in the letters'3
But what is more, the quotation is a significant key for understanding
the logic ofthe homily
It may be that it is quoted verbatim because it provides the midrashic basisfor the antithesis we found to be central to the whole passage's logic(viz , theysat down to eat and drink[cf vv 1 5] and rose up to play[cf
vv 6 l l ] )4
To establish this, Meeks looks to Jewish tradition for 'some analogous
exegetical move that would permit the verb to imply all these
sins'5
listed m 1 Cor 10 6-10 (craving, idolatry, fornication, testing and
grumbling) He finds help from the Tosefia, the Genesis Rabbah, the
Palestinian Targums, the LXX and Philo Rabbinic sources reveal expla
nations of('playing') to mean idolatry, sexual immorality, bloodshed
or attempted murder The LXX equivalents ( and )
often mean 'to joke, mock, or make fun of, and 'immediately suggest
the fourth and fifth sins, "testing Christ [or the Lord]" and "grumbling" '
in 1 Cor 10 9, 106
Philo, along with otherJews of Hellenistic culture,
specifically understood the golden calf incident (Exod 32) m terms of
'turning the soul away from higher things and becoming embroiled inthe material world',
7an apt expression for 'craving evil things' in 1 Cor
10 6 Thus, all five sins (and more) listed in 1 Cor 10 6-11 can be singly
linked to midrashic interpretations of As Meeks says
The elegant symmetry ofthe piece is not adventitious but is founded on aquite subtle exegesis ofthe one scriptural verse that is formally quoted,Exodus 32 6
8
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
3/22
COLLIER 'That we Might not Crave Evil' 57
The argument of the homily, says Meeks, flows naturally into vv. 12-13
which (1) warn against over confidence, and (2) offer consolation against
falling into resistible temptations, as in the five sins listed in vv. 6-10:craving, idolatry, fornication, testing and grumbling. In this way, the
general focus of the original, isolated homily (against resistible tempta
tions) is different from the specific focus which Paul draws from it here
in 1 Corinthians. For in vv. 14-22 Paul draws upon only one of the
homily's five sinsidolatrywhich is the dominant theme ofchs. 8-10.
This also explains for Meeks why Exod. 32.6 is the only textual
quotation: Paul added it because of his current interest in idolatry. But
by drawing out only one of the sins, Paul in effect reinterprets thehomily; indeed, 'the homily does not fit the context so very well...
because it was composed for another purpose'.9
Meeks's analysis has several compelling features, including specifically
the understanding of as 'craving' rather than 'lust' (based
on the Num. 11 context), the emphasis upon Exod. 32.6, and the
possible midrashic relationship of to the other listed sins.10
Moreover, he charts a course for examining 1 Cor. 10.1-13 as anindependent unit.
His analysis is not, however, without serious difficulties. Not only
does his structure of the pericope appear to be forced,11
it is also unclear
from his argument whether anyone other than Paul even could have
9. 'And Rose up to Play', p. 74. The 'otherpurpose' refers to the general focus
ofthe homilyagainst resistible sins.10 G. Fee, The FirstEpistle to the Corinthians (d. F F. Bruce, NICNT; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 454, dismisses Meeks's analysis in one sentence:
'[Meeks] makes the dubious suggestion that 'play' here is intended to cover all five
forms ofsin listed in vv. 6-10' What isdismissed along with this is Meeks's overall
effort to explain the relationship ofthe four examples (vv. 6-10) to each other, as wellas to the rest ofvv. 1-22. In this regard, however, Meeks's contribution is significant.
11. The phrase in v. 6 does not bearthe weight Meeks puts onit as being one ofthe 'listed sins' ; it is rathera general 'heading' statement, as shown
bythe following points: (1) The statement ofthe sm m 6 is ofa different form thanvv. 7-10. (2) The reference to 'some' is also different, despite Meeks's disclaimer
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
4/22
58 Journal for the Study of the New Testament55 (1994)
composed the homily (despite numerous affirmative statements), or
whether the homily could have been independent. For if Paul added
Exod. 32.6 to the homily in order to focus on idolatry in vv. 14-22,12
and if Exod. 32.6 is vital for 'the elegant symmetry of the piece',13
then
it would seem either that Paul himself must have composed the piece
explicitly for the Corinthian context, or that Paul, for his own contextual
needs, merely made explicit what was already implicit: viz., the
underlying, but to that point unquoted, basic text of the pericope, Exod.
32.6. And in that case merely making the quotation explicit would not
have changed anything about the pericope.
Before proceeding to my own analysis, it will be useful to look brieflyat a second study, by Lawrence Wills.
14Like Meeks, Wills sees the peri
cope as a homily, only much more specifically. Wills identifies the peri
cope as extending through v. 14 (not 13), and argues that it reflects an
early Hellenistic/Jewish and Christian sermon form (derived originally
from 'Greek rhetoric in the Hellenistic schools'15
) which he calls 'the
word of exhortation'. Wills finds a formal rhetorical structureexempla,
conclusion, exhortationin various NT, early Christian and Jewish, and
Greek rhetorical writings.16 The structure can stand alone or 'be used
repeatedly in cyclical fashion as building blocks of a longer sermon'.17
Accordingly, 1 Cor. 10.1-14 may be regarded as a homily having three
definable cycles (see fig. I).18
Based on this examination, Wills concludes
that 'Paul may be adapting an older sermon, or intentionally imitating
sermonic style; either way, the word of exhortation has influenced the
composition of this passage'.19
12. Meeks, 'And Rose up to Play', pp. 68-69.
13. Meeks, 'And Rose up to Play', p. 71.
14. L. Wills, 'The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early
Christianity', HTR 77.3-4 (1984), pp. 277-99. Wills makes no reference to Meeks.15. Wills, 'The Form ofthe Sermon', p. 299.
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
5/22
COLLIER 'That we Mightnot Crave Evil' 59
a Exempla lb-5 Exposition ofScriptureb Conclusion 6 'Now these are warningsc Exhortations 7-10 'let us not/do not'
a New Exempla 7-10 Israel's sins and resultsb Conclusion 11 'Now these things happened to
them as a warning... 'c Exhortation 12 'Therefore, let anyone who
thinks he stands takeheed lest he fall.'
a Exemplum 13a Exposition
b Conclusion 13bc Exhortation 14
m
Figure 1
Wills does not, however, integrate his proposal with previous work on
the passage. He himself is less certain about the third cycle (vv. 13-14),
speaking of it only as 'quite likely'.20
But in fact it does not appear that
the third cycle is a cycle at all, but an extended exhortation (vv. 12-13).21
Verse 13a does not function as an exemplum in any sense in the structure of 1 Cor. 10.1-13, but as a conclusion or means of comfort derived
somehow from the previous material. Indeed, vv. 12-13 function collec
tivelyto draw a conclusion based on the aggregate lesson preceding in
vv. 1-11, not just 7-10; it is a general conclusion and final exhortation.
Though Meeks's and Wills's concerns are quite different, with these
two studies the form, structure and function of the pericope have finally
come to the forefront.22
Here are efforts to see the pericope on its own
terms, though certainly as it may reflect contemporary formal structures.
Still, questions remain, and there are some unsatisfactory elements in
Meeks's and Wills's discussions relating especially to midrashic structure
20. Wills, 'The Form ofthe Sermon', p. 289.21. Nordoes v. 14 belong as part ofthe pericope. See below.22. Much previous work focused on background material. See especially,
S.R. Driver, 'Notes on Three Passages in St Paul's Epistles', Exp 9 (1889), pp. 15-23; H.St.J. Thackeray, Relationship ofStPaulto ContemporaryJewish Thought
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
6/22
60 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994)
and function within the larger context of 1 Corinthians 8-10. It remains,
then, to address these issues.
2. Structure
The pericope seems to be set off from its context both by the first
person singular (v. 1) and (v. 14), and by (v. 1), which
may here indicate traditional material of some kind.23
As it exists, the
pericope falls into three distinct blocks, each uniquely crafted (see fig. 2).
In the first block (vv. 1-5) the fivefold is contrasted sharply
and abruptly with a single . This is followed in vv. 7-10 with afourfold , making the contrast between and
a basic part of the structure (though the present 5:4 ratio need
not be original). Verses 6-11 are a formal chiasm based partially on
parallel thought patterns in the verses, but mostly on parallels among
four verbs: , ', / (vv. 6, 11); , ', the pre
sent imperative second plurals, and (vv. 7 and 10);24
and C, C, the hortatory subjunctives and (vv. 8 and 9).
Even so, a more significant pattern is to be seen in that (1) all six
blocks of vv. 6-11 have three elements each, roughly parallel with the
otherblocks in an a-b-c order; (2) v. 6 and 11 form an inclusio;25
and
(3) the four remaining blocks26
(vv. 7-10) are virtually parallel in every
respect. Although each of these verses (7-10) begins with the negative
particle , and is thus related back to v. 6, it is nevertheless clear
from structural elements that vv. 7-10 are set apart from v. 6 (a headingstatement) and are not simply a continuation of a list offive sins.
23. Cf. 8.1, 4; 9.10; 11.23; and Gal 3.11. Note also, on the introductoryphrase,Rom 1.13; 11.25-26; 1 Cor. 12.1, 1-4; 2 Cor. 1.8; and 1 Thess. 4.13; and seeE.E. Ellis, 'Traditions in 1 Corinthians', NTS32 (1986), esp. pp. 490 and 499 n. 79.
24. Some witnesses ( R D F G^r33 itd, e copbo arm Origin Chrysostom Augustine)have (v 10) to which Meeks is attracted along with a suggestion of
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
7/22
COLLIER That we Mightnot Crave Evil' 61
Verse: Reference:
1 , ,
Pss. 78, 106
2
3
4 :
,
.
5 ' , Num. 14.16
.
6 a , Num. 11.4,34
A b ,
c .
7 a Exod. 32.6
b ,
c ,
.
8 a , Num. 25.1
C b
c .
9 a , Num. 21.4-7
C b
c .
10 a , Num. 11.1' b
c .
11 a , cf. Wis. 16.2-14
A b ,
c .
12
.13 C :
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
8/22
62 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994)
A somewhat curious alteration in the parallelism of vv. 7-10 is the
third element in v. 7. Still, it is noteworthy that each of the third
elements has not only to do with punishment, but is described in
language that gets successively stronger: the cause of their downfall
(v. 7), they fell (v. 8), they were being destroyed by serpents (v. 9), and
they were destroyed by the angel of destruction (v. 10).27
The tenor of the argument increases in other respects as well.
(v. 6) is weaker than its counterpart, (v. 11)
which in the NT nearly always indicates an event with (dire)
consequences.28
Also, (v. 11) is possibly original, despite its
omission by NA26
, UBSGNT4
and most commentators.29
Even withoutit, however, the intensity of the pericope steadily builds.
Verse 13 has caused commentators problems since it contains no
obvious allusions to the larger context ofchs. 8-10. However, vv. 12-13
together form a chiasm, pinpointing the center of concern and bringing
the immediate pericope to a focused conclusion and exhortation. God,
who destroyed most of our fathers for their sins, is nevertheless faithful,
for he provides an escape from the temptation of such evil cravings as
they had. The one who bears up under such temptation, will do so by
27 It is not the verbs , and in vv 8-10 which
alone indicate a crescendo in punishment, but the full language of Israel's fate it is
bad enough to fall (v 8), but the language of 'being destroyed by the angel of
destruction' (v 10) is certainly more ominous and is held till the end For more on
the 'angel of destruction' (possibly God or the Lord') see nn 38 and 39 below
28 Mk 10 32, Lk. 24 14, Acts 3 10, 20 19, 21 35, and esp 1 Pet 4 12
29 Whether was added for emphasis, as most argue (Metzger, A Textual
Commentary, p. 560, Fee, The FirstEpistle to the Corinthians, p. 451 ; G Zuntz, The
Text of the Epistles [London Oxford University Press, 1946], 166 n 5 [contra von
Soden], A Robertson and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
FirstEpistle of StPaul to the Corinthians [ICC, Edinburgh & Clark, 2nd edn,
1914], 208, Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 451) or was deleted to
harmonize the phrase with 6 is at least arguable, despite the variation m its place
ment The reading in A (v. 11), m fact, seems fully harmonized with 6 as a sort of introductory formula. On internal grounds, it is not improbable that
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
9/22
COLLIER 'That we Might not Crave Evil' 63
the power of the same God who has final ability to destroy utterly. The
pericope 10.1-13 is about God.
3. Midrashic Argument
At first glance, there does not appear to be a main OT text in view, and
a look at the margin of NA26
seems to confirm that judgment. As noted
already, the only OT text to be quoted directly is Exod. 32.6 on idolatry
(v. 7), which, according to Meeks, provides 'the midrashic basis for the
antithesis we found to be central to the whole passage's logic (viz., they
sat down to eat and drink [cf. vv. 1-5] and rose up to play [cf. vv. 6-l l ] ' .3 0
Meeks's suggestion is indeed intriguing, and it is perhaps more than a
curiosity that the quote comes exactly in the middle of the pericope.31
But I would propose the following: (1) the midrashic basis ofthe passage
lies in Numbers 11, which is also the main text; (2) Exod. 32.6 is
midrashically derived on the basis of a word tally with Numbers 11;
(3) the main theme of our pericope is a denunciation of
(those who crave evil things), found in the heading statement ofv. 6; and (4) the sins that follow in vv. 7-10 (idolatry, harlotry, testing
Christ and grumbling) illustrate the main theme and are midrashically
derived by way of Exod. 32.6, not on the basis of alone
(Meeks), if at all, but primarily on the basis of the phrase,
for each of the underlying OT texts ties
Israel's sin to eating and are interpreted here in light of .
To demonstrate this proposal, I will look first at Numbers 11 as themain text of our pericope, including the role and function of Exod. 32.6;
then I will examine the relationship of with eating
and drinking in general, and with Exod. 32.6 in particular.
Numbers 11 as Main Text
The first clue that Numbers 11 is in view is the heading statement in v. 6
(the first statement of the inclusio) where the readers are warned not to
be 'cravers ofevil' ( ) like the children of Israel hadcraved (). Here is a clear echo
32of the end and beginning
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
10/22
64 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament55 (1994)
of Numbers 11 (vv. 34 and 4 respectively) where the two words occur,
each with the more general term, .3 3
LXX Num. 11.4 and 33-
34 read as follows:
4 And the rabble among them craved a craving (
), so that the children ol Israel sat down and cried and said,
'Why wo n' t he feed us meat?' 33 While the meat was still in their teeth,
even before they were done, the Lord was enraged against the people, and
the Lord struck the people with an exceedingly great plague 34 And the
name of that place was called 'Monuments of the Craving', ()
because there they buned the people who had the craving ()
Significantly, Num. 11.4 and 34 serve as a kind of inclusio of a narrative on Israel's intense craving for meat. This of the people
incurs the ('hot anger', note the wordplay) of Yahweh (vv. 10
and 33), who grants their wish only to destroy them by an exceedingly
great plague (
). 1 Cor. 10.6, by referring to Numbers 11, calls up this context
(Robertson and Plummer, A Critical Commentary, 203, J Hring, The FirstEpistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians [London Epworth Press, 1962], 90,C Perrot, 'Les exemples du desert [1 Cor 10 6-11] ', NTS 29 [1983], 438) or may
not (Conzelmann, First Epistle to the Corinthians, W F Orr and J A Walther,
1 Corinthians [AB, Garden City, NY Doubleday, 1976]) point to Num 11 as the
backgroun d text here But none sees anything more than a passing reference to the
text In contrast to all of this, Nu m 11, as a proper ' ec ho ' of 1 Cor 10 6-10, meets
six of the seven entena listed by R Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul
(New Haven Yale University Press, 1989), pp 29-32 availability of the text, volume
of allusions (which I will demonstrate), recurrence of reference to Num 11 elsewhere
(in Paul, other NT writings, and other contemporary authors, e g , Philo), thematic
coherence with 1 Cor 10 1-13, historical plausibility that Paul could have used it m
the proposed way and that attentive readers of the LXX could have understood it, and
satisfaction that Num 11 illuminates the meaning of 1 Cor 10 1-13 in such a way as
to explain the intertextual relation of texts (again, which I will demonstrate)
33 Although and occur m Ps 105(106) 14, and the latter in
77 (7 8) 29 -3 0, m 1 Cor 10 6 comes directly from Nu m 11 34
The occu rrenc e of the adjective phrase ('desirable lan d') inPs 105(106) 24 is unrelated
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
11/22
COLLIER 'That we Might not Crave Evil' 65
of / and destruction in the desert, thus making a quite
natural transition between 1 Cor. 10.5 and 6. (Verse 5 alludes to Num.
14.16 that God overthrew them in the desert,
?[ .) Numbers 11 and 14 are seen in the same confessional
context of rebellious Israel incurring God's wrath in the desert. Though
1 Cor. 10.5 directly alludes to Num. 14.16, it is nonetheless a proper
introduction to the same theme from Numbers 11 in the next verse.
The second clue that Numbers 11 is the text in view is the specific
wording of Exod. 32.6 quoted in 1 Cor. 10.7:
. Indeed, this text was
'suggested' to our author by a word tally of two verbs that (again) standat the beginning and end of LXX Numbers 11, (v. 4) and
(v. 32):
4 And the rabble among them craved a craving, so that the children ofIsrael satdown () and cried and said, 'Whywon't he feed usmeat?...32 And the people rose up () all dayand night and allthe next day and gathered the quail...
35
This is the more striking since at Num. 11.4 the Masoretic traditiondoes not allow for such a link, reading *aem as Osn 'they turned' (from
the verb mo). In contrast, LXX tradition interpreted the same Hebrew
consonants as razn 'they sat down' (from the verb ner). As a result, LXX
Numbers 11 says that the children of Israel 'sat down' (,
11.4) and 'rose up' (, 11.32) in pursuit of meat which they
greatly craved ( ), providing the author of
1 Cor. 10.6-7 with a midrashic link to Exod. 32.6 as a kind of summary
of Numbers 11. Exod. 32.6 is understood midrashically as Numbers 11
writ small.36
The third indication that Numbers 11 is the text in view is the way in
which Exod. 32.6 unwraps the theme of Numbers 11 by
pulling in related OT texts. For by the time the midrashic linkages are
35.
...
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
12/22
66 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament55 (1994)
finallycompleted, we will have gone full circle back to Num. 11.1.
A major question about Exod. 32.6 has been why it appears at this
point in the pericope (v. 7). The best answer is that, as the only quoted
text in the list of sins, the phrase
becomes midrashically definitive for the other sins.37
Thus, the particular
ways the people craved included idolatry (v. 7), harlotry (v. 8), testing
Christ (v. 9) and grumbling (v. 10).
But merely to list the sins is not helpful since it does not show what
relationship exists among them, or between them and Exod. 32.6. For
each of the OT texts specifically mentions food and illustrates a matter
relating directly to , viz., when Israel sat down toeat, they sinned, for they craved the food of their own choosing, rather
than what God had provided: (1) in idolatry (v. 7), it was eating and
drinking in an idol feast in an attempt to fulfill their own desires (Exod.
32.6); (2) in harlotry (v. 8), it was a desecration against God himself as
'the people blatantly practiced harlotry' (
), primarily a forsaking of God in idolatry, since the
people 'ate the [Moabite] sacrifices and worshiped their idols' (
, Num. 25.1-2); and (3) in testing (v. 9), it was the speaking
against God ( ) that was at issue, for
the people said, 'there is no food or water' (
, Num. 21.4-7).
(4) The last sin to be listed, grumbling (v. 10), is more difficult to
locate precisely. It is so commonplace in the wilderness traditions that
1 Cor. 10.10 is often assumed either to be making a generalized reference, or perhaps a reference to Numbers 14 (refusal to enter the land),
or Numbers 16 (Korah's rebellion and subsequent uprising of the
people). I would suggest, however, that Numbers 11 itself is the text of
choice, since it provides four important items: (1) v. 1 begins,
; (2) vv. 33-34 describe the
of ;3 8
(3) all of this takes place in the context of rampant
; and this is (4) described as an insatiable (anddeadly) craving for meat. Numbers 11 is, in fact, the only text that
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
13/22
COLLIER That we MightnotCrave Evil' 67
satisfies all of these conditions set forth in 1 Cor. 10.10.39
When 1 Cor. 10.10 returns to Numbers 11, then, the entire context of
Numbers 11 is called up. What follows next, in 10.11, is the quite fitting
second statement of the inclusio:
, , .
The noun occurs only here in the undisputed letters of
Paul,40
and only once in LXX, at Wis. 16.6, in precisely the same form:
('they were provoked
as a warning for a short time'). And perhaps it is more than coincidentalthat the subject of Wis. 16.2-14 is Numbers ll.
4 1
It appears that in 1 Cor. 10.6-11, the inclusio (vv. 6 and 11) wraps the
whole statement into a coherent piece against the
of Numbers 11. From the midrashically chosen Exod. 32.6 (on the basis
of and ) to the subsequent texts from Numbers
25, 21 and 11 (all chosen on the basis of the concept
in Exod. 32.6), each of the OT texts illustrates the
point against . For the food which Israel craved (vv. 7-10) was
a blatant rejection of the food offered by God (vv. 1-4).
Eating and
It was indicated above that on the basis of the phrase
in Exod. 32.6, other 'food' texts could be
39. With reference to ('destroyer') in 1 Cor. 10.10: Num. 11 and16 are the best candidates, although only the verb form () occurs in theLXX(19 times). Only one ofthese is in Numbers (4.18, not related). Six usages inLXX approximate 1 Cor. 10.10: for (Josh 7.25; Hag. 2.23 [22]; Jer. 33.22[25.36]); for (Josh 3.10); for an angel (Exod. 12.23; and Wis. 18.25 [on Num.16]).
40. Theword occurs only two other times in the NT at Eph 6.4 (the instruction ofchildren) and Tit. 3.10 (give warning to a factious man).
41. The two texts (Wis. 16.2-14 and 1 Cor. 10.1-13) are mirror images ofeach
other. Wis. 16 uses Num. 11 to extol the blessing and kindness of God (evenascribing to the animals rather than to God! v. 5); appears to be
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
14/22
68 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament55 ( 1994)
midrashically sought out to illustrate the phrase
from Numbers 11. The purpose of such midrashic linkages would be to
excoriate . At this point, it will be helpful to explore this
interest in excoriating and in linking it with food and drink in
general, and with Exod. 32.6 in particular. For such an interest is not
unique to 1 Corinthians 10, but is found also at least in Philo and
Rabbinic literature.
Philo, for example, expounding on the tenth commandment (
), focuses on in Numbers 11 and interprets the
whole chapter as aimed against greed, gluttony and wanton self indul
gence. In the process, he greatly exaggerates the biblical imagery ofgathering the quail:
With both hands they pulled in the creatures andfilledtheir laps with them,
then put them away in theirtents, and, since excessive avidity knows no
bounds, went out to catch others, and after dressing them in any way they
could devoured them greedily, doomed in their senselessness to be
destroyed by the surfeit42
For Philo, gluttony is a common result of . The followingquote is even more poignant:
when it [] takes hold of the region of the belly, it produces
gourmands, insatiable, debauched, eagerly pursuing a loose and dissolute
life, delighting in wine bibbing and gluttonous feeding, base slaves to
strong drink and fish and dainty cates, sneaking like greedy little dogs
round banqueting halls and tables, all this finally resulting in an unhappy
and accursed life which is more painful than any death.43
These quotes are characteristic of Philo's vitriolic expatiations on
, which combine Platonic, Stoic and Jewish vocabulary and
argumentation.4 4
But for Philo, is not a neutral passion.45
42 Spec Leg 4 129
43. Spec. Leg. 4.91 See his entire argument, 4 79-131 In his use of ,
Philo 'follows the Stoic idea which conceives of the desire ofwhat we have not got asa spiritual disease ' (F Colson, Philo [LCL, 8, Cambridge, MA Harvard
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
15/22
COLLIER That we Might not Crave Evil' 69
Indeed he says, 'So great and transcendent an evil is that it
should more correctly be called, "the fountain of all evils'"4 6
A similarcondemnation of 'evil craving' (van 2), as it is con-nected
to eating and drinking, appears in Midrash Tanhuma4 7
craving
says, "Let us eat and drink and do all that we crave to do" (mrr 2
bD iron *t TDT)' This in itself is an interesting parallel to
1 Cor 10 6-7 However, the rabbis do not appear to expound upon the
evil nature of ma (hithpael = 'desire', 'lust', 'craving', LXX =
) m the same manner that Philo expounds on (m
Platonic and Stoic categories) Even so, they do not hesitate to exploit
the easy interchange of meaning between the concepts of craving and ofeating and drinking
For example, Num R 15 2448
explains that the opening phrase of
Num 114 ('the mixed multitude had a great craving') referred to the
seventy elders themselves In Num 11 16 the seventy elders received a
portion of Moses' spint Earlier m Exod 24 9-11 they ascended Mount
Sinai with Moses, saw God, and then ate and drank The Midrash then
asks, 'To what may this [eating and drinking in God's presence] be
compared9
To the case of a servant attending upon his master while
holding a piece of bread in his hand and biting from it ' That is to say,
the mt* ('craving') of Num 11 4 is linked to 'eating and drinking' in
Exod 24 9-11 on the basis that both texts speak of food, as well as of
the seventy elders
In other texts, the verb aer ('to sit' or 'dwell') is used as shorthand for
m, even where TIR does not occur And this practice is apparently based
46 Spec Leg 4 84 For Philo's harangue against in terms of food and
drink, see Spec Leg 4 79-134 For other texts on this, see Wis 19 11, 16 2,
Sir 23 5-6, and 4 Mace 1 34, 3 6-18, 5 14-24 In both Greekphilosophy and Jewish
literature refers generally to 'the direct impulse towards food, sexual
satisfaction, etc , and also desire in general' (Buchsel, ', ', TDNT,
III, 169) Greek philosophy assessed it ethically in terms of failure to live
according to reason, whereas Jewish literature assesses it morally and religiouslyas
sin against God
47 Midr Tanh 11 1 (on Gen 44 18), quoted from Midrash Tanhuma (trans
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
16/22
70 Journal for the Study of the New Testament55 (1994)
on Exod. 32.6. For example, Num. R. 9.2449
blames the building of the
towerof Babel (Gen. 11.1-8) on eating and drinking at a drunken party:
And the whole earth was ofone language... And it came to pass, as theydwelt () there; yeshibah indicates nought but eating and drinking; forit says, (in Exod. 32.6) And the people sat down (aan) to eat and to drink.That was the cause; for it says, And they said: Come, let us build us acity, and a tower.
So according to this interpreter, the people of the earth had a drunken
party at which theyconcocted the notion ofthe tower. And this insight
was all based on a midrashic linking of the verb ntD" in two unrelated
texts (i.e., gezerah shawah).
Several examples could be cited forthis,50
but at least one example in
the midrashim links Exod. 32.6 with Num. 25.1-5 in the same way that
1 Cor. 10.7-8 links the same two texts. In what I will cite, three different
OT texts are linked on the word at\ which is used as a code word for
eating and drinking:
When they sat down to eat, they sold their brother
Joseph. So also in Shittim: And [the daughters ofMoab] invited thepeople to sacrifice to their Gods (Num. 25.2). So also the making ofthe
golden calf was on account ofwine: Andthe people satdownOETI> to
eat and drink(Exod. 32.6).51
For our purposes it is quite instructive to note that the word a\ on
which all of these texts are linked, is specifically stated in the first and
last quotes, but does not appear in the second quote (from Num. 25.2).
However, the reader is expected to know the Scripture, that Num. 25.1begins: ntjcn btoyrn^n. So on the basis ofgezerah shawah, on the word
acr, these otherwise unrelated texts are linked for purposes of illustrating
the main point, that 'Wherever you find wine, you find a downfall'. This,
in fact, is quite common methodology, that the point of contact between
the various texts may not be the part quoted in the interpretation.
49. Cited from Midrash Rabbah on Numbers (trans. J.J. Slotki; New York: The
Soncino Press, 3rd edn, 1983), V, p. 283.50. For example, Piska 43 and 318 in Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
17/22
COLLIER "Thatwe Mightnot Crave Evil' 71
These parallels from Philo and the rabbis are highly suggestive for our
text in 1 Corinthians 10. For even though they come from a variety of
dates and philosophic backgrounds, it is precisely that variety that lends
strength to the notion that the relationship of /m to food anddrink in general, and to Exod. 32.6 in particular, on midrashic grounds,
would not have been unusual at the time of Paul.52
Nor would it have
been unusual to link the texts on a matter not specifically quoted in the
written interpretations: the listed sins in 1 Cor. 10.7-10 need not have
specified 'food and drink' as the common element among them for that
to have been the common element.
And in the case of Philo, the similarity with 1 Corinthians 10 isespecially pronounced. For on the one hand, Philo identifies
with the 'fountain of all evils' ( ); on the
other hand, he associates the water from the rock with the fountain
() of God's Wisdom: 'For the flinty rock is the Wisdom of God...
the fountain which He drew out from His own wisdom'.53
This topos of
two fountains (or sources for behavior) seems also to be reflected in 1
Corinthians 10: God gave them the spiritual, ever-present rock (
, vv. 1-4), and yet Our fathers'rejected it because of , the source of their sins (vv. 6-10).
It is in this light that of 1 Cor. 10.6 is to be understood. It
is not merely one ofthe listed sins, but the source of sin to be explicated.
Indeed, vv. 7-10 amount to a 'spelling out' of v. 6.54
To summarize, it is particularly interesting to notice the flow of the
midrashic argument in 1 Cor. 10.1-11. Verses 1-5 give a confessional
summary of God's blessings in the wilderness (in the tradition of
52. That is to say, Philo and the Rabbis certainly would not have derived theirinterpretations ormethods from Paul! The fact that all ofthese sources reflect asimilar understanding ofsuch texts and methods (despite the differences that mayexist) attests to theirexistence in Jewish interpretation at the time ofPaul.
53. Leg. All. 2.86-87. See also Somn. 2.221-22, 270-71 and Ebr. 112-13.
54. Heikki Risnen (Jesus, Paul andTorah [JSNTSup, 43; Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1992], p. 109) is correct to dispute the notion that is used in this texti ' i i ' ( i h i ' f l l f f lfilli [ h L ]'
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
18/22
72 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994)
Pss. 7S7106)55
and ends with God's displeasure from Num. 14.16, 'God
scattered them in the desert'. This in turn calls up one such text where
God scattered them in the desert, Numbers 11. Thus, in 1 Cor. 10.6-
11itself a well defined block by means of an inclusio and a chiastic
arrangement of tripletsNumbers 11 becomes the main text of exposi
tion, not only being strongly alluded to in both vv. 6 and 10, but also
being midrashically unfolded by Exod. 32.6 which is directly quoted.
Exod. 32.6 is a secondary text, itself midrashically derived from
Numbers 11 by way of gezerah shawah on and .
By way of the phrase, , Exod. 32.6
is used to open up the phrase of Numbers 11 bywalking backwards through the book of Numbers to nfood texts in
which God had scattered the people in the desert. Three texts are
selected: Num. 25.1 (harlotry), 21.4-7 (testing) and 11.1 (grumbling).
Thus, the exegesis ends with the first verse of the main text. Each of the
examples cited in the exegesis receives increasingly harsher punishment,
until the people are destroyed by (the Lord), apparently
the fate of those who drink from rather than from the ever-
present rock (Christ). Finally, in the closing statement of the inclusio
(v. 11), all of this is said to be instruction ofeternal import.
What is striking about this is that, taken together with vv. 12-13, the
entire pericope can easily stand on its own as a focused statement
against falling prey to the temptation of selfish craving, with a con
cluding exhortation centered in the faithfulness of God: as God has
destroyed, he can also deliver. In view ofthis, it is natural to speculate
that the pericope may have originally been independent of its presentcontext, perhaps a Christian or pre-Christian homily of some sort.
56
55 Both Pss 78 and 106 confessionally retell the story ofGod's gracious acts mthe face ofIsrael's unfaithfulness Still the Psalms develop theirthemes in differentways The pre-exihc Ps 78 (cf. vv 67-72) pulsates around the theme 'they forgot,they sinned, they rebelled, they tested' etc , despite the blessings ofGod The psalm isfreeflowing:there are two separate mentions each ofthe Red Sea incident (vv 13 and
54) and water from the rock (vv. 15-16 and 20); Exod. 16 and Num 11 are conflated(vv. 17-39); and the ten plagues are reordered with mention ofonly seven ofthemTh ili P 106 ( f 4 5 47) th th h d i t i htf d t lli
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
19/22
COLLIER That we Might not Crave Evil' 73
Indeed, the removal of all necessarily Christian elements from this
pericope leaves an interesting 4 + 4 balanced pericope,57
with all ofthe
essential elements intact Ofcourse, such a pre-Christian 'homily' cannot
be proved to have existed. But this does show that there is nothing
essentiallyChristian about the structure orargument ofthe passage58
apparent' in both the explanation of the quotation and the summary of the Exodus
events One is tempted, however, to go further and suggest that the verystructure of
this text is homiletic in nature Joseph Heinemann ('The Proem in the Aggadic
Midrashim A Form Critical Study', in J Heinemann and D Noy [eds ], Studies in
Aggadah and Folk-Literature (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 22, Jerusalem Magnes,1971]), speaking of Tannaitic homilies among the rabbis, noted that there are many
public sermons about which 'we do not know very much' But there is 'one pattern
which can be clearly recognized as a form created for and used m the live sermon'
the proem 'Instead of starting from the first verse of the pericope and expounding it,
[the proem-form] begins invariablywith a verse taken from elsewhere, mostly from
the Hagiographa, from this "remote" verse the preacher proceeds to evolve a chain of
expositions and interpretations until, at the very end of the proem, he arrives at the first
verse of the pericope with which he concludes' (see esp pp 101, 103) After some
discussion, Heinemann examines the proem of R Eleazar b Azanah on Eccl 12 11(which he dates at the end of the first century) which concludes with an exhortation
(pp 114-16)
There are obvious similarities between what Heinemann describes and 1 Cor 10 1-
13, at least in broad terms Even so, there are also differences m detail It would
simply be too much to claim that 1 Cor 10 1-13 is an early proem On the other hand,
it is not too much to suggest (assuming Heinemann is correct in his own
assessments) that 1 Cor 10 1-13 exhibits traits of later established homiletic forms
Perhaps it originated as an independent homily of some kind on Num 1157 Verses 1-11 cloud, sea, food and drink(1-4), and idolatry, harlotry, testing,
and grumbling (7-10), all centered about It would seem best to regard
vv 2 (baptism into Moses), 4c, 9 (), and 1 lb as at least Christian, and la, 3
and 5 (/), and 12-13 as necessarily Pauline
58 This of course is a very difficult area of study Several have warned against
using the category 'homily', since such terms may be referring to genres of literature
'that are possibly non-existent or highly artificial' ( Donfried, The Setting of
Second Clement in Early Christianity [NovTSup, 38, Leiden Brill, 1974], 26, to
give but one example) Surely, the caution is justified Nevertheless Donfhed and
others go too far in altogether disallowing the use of terms like 'homily', 'midrash
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
20/22
74 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament55 (1994)
Conclusion
The present study suggests that 10.1-13 is a self-contained midrash on
in Numbers 11 and is not a piece revised in the direction of
idolatry per se (as argued by Meeks)although it certainly speaks
against idolatry. As such, it is possible, though unproven, that it may
have been an independent 'homily' of some sort prior to its inclusion in
the present letter.
This leaves open the provocative question about its relation to the larger
context of chs. 8-10. Only a word can be offered here, but it appears
that 10.1-13 is significant for the larger context, more so than its relationship with 10.14-22 and the idolatry theme might indicate. For seen in its
broadercontext, 1 Cor. 10.1-13 is a focused argument against a Corinthian
craving () for the wrong kind of 'food'. To insist on one's
right to eat idol meat is to insist on eating from the fountain of ,
ratherthan from Christ, the rock. The desire to eat and drink in an idol's
temple grows out of a larger problem: a selfish craving which proceeds
without concern for the will of God or for others. Such egocentric
insistence was long ago shown to be odious to God, who will recoil
against such behavior. But God can provide deliverance even from that.
Whether or not 10.1-13 needs the larger context, it appears that the
larger context needs 10.1-13: a small but pointed midrash on craving
evil.59
Indeed, (1) ifa pericope can be demonstrated to have features often found m known
homilies, even ofa laterdate, (2) ifothercontextual clues indicate a homiletic originfor the pericope (such as a claim to have been a synagogue address), (3) if thepericope can be demonstrated to be at least in some sense a self-contained unit, and(4) ifother indications (ofwhatever nature) lend support to the idea, then (5) thereshould be no objection to a cautious and responsible proposal that the given text mayhave been an early 'homily' or'midrash/homily' Forhomily form in 1 Cor 2 6-16,see W Weulner, 'Haggadic HomilyGenre in 1 Cor 1-3', JBL 89 (1970), pp 199-204; E E Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity- New TestamentEssays (WUNT, 18, Tubingen Mohr, 1978), pp 147-72 and 213-20, and
V Branick, 'Source and Redaction Analysis of 1 Corinthians 1-3', JBL 101 2(1982), pp 251-69 However, all ofthese studies are vulnerable to the charge ofover
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
21/22
COLLIER That we Might not Crave Evil' 75
ABSTRACT
The separate studies of Wayne Meeks and Lawrence Wills have brought the form,
structure and function of 1 Cor. 10.1-13 to the forefront of interest on this text and
provide an excellent base for re-examination. Meeks's view that the pericope is an
exposition ofExod. 32.6 is challenged and modified. The pericope is found here to
be a midrashic exposition of Num. 11 in the tradition of Pss. 78 and 106, using
Exod. 32.6 as an exegetical device to 'open up' Num. 11. Furthermore, in its context,
10.1-13 is a focused argument against Corinthian wilfulness (craving) to participate in
idolatrous practices, even at the expense of others. The pericope functions in context
according to its central structure and argument and is not somehow bent unnaturallyinto service. Even so, it is a tightly argued, self-contained unit, and may have been
originally pre-1 Corinthian or even pre-Christian.
This publicationis available inmicroform.
University MicrofilmsInternational reproduces this
publication in microform:microfiche and 16mm or
35mm film. For informationabout this publication or anyof the more than 13,000 titles
we offer, complete and mail the coupon to: UniversityMicrofilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor,MI 48106. Call us toll-free for an immediate response:800-521-3044. Or call collect in Michigan, Alaska andHawaii: 313-761-4700.
Z Please send information about these titles
Name
Company/Institution
Address
City
State
7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument
22/22
^ ,
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined byU.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution ofthis journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holderforan entire issue ofa journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author ofthe article maymaintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
workforanyuse not covered bythe fair use provisions ofthe copyright laws orcoveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,orcontact ATLA to request contact information forthe copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed bythe American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from LillyEndowment Inc.
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the propertyofthe AmericanTheological Library Association.