1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument

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


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


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


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.


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


6/22


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


7/22

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 :


8/22


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


9/22


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


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


11/22


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.

...


12/22


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


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


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


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


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


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 ]'


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


19/22


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


20/22


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


21/22


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


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.

1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument

Documents

Transcript of 1 Cor 10.1-13 - Structure and Argument