Learning from Israel’s Failures, 1-13

10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, 10:2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. 10:5 But God was not pleased with most of them, for they were cut down in the wilderness.

vv 1-13. ‘They had been highly favoured as well as we. They had been miraculously guided by the pillar of cloud; they had been led through the Red Sea; they had been fed with manna from heaven, and with water from the rock; and yet the great majority of them perished, vv1-5. This is a solemn warning to Christians not to give way to temptation, as the Israelites did, v6. That is, not to be led into idolatry, v7, nor into fornication, v8, not into tempting Christ, v9, nor into murmuring, v10. In all these points the experience of the Israelites was a warning to Christians; and therefore those who thought themselves secure should take heed lest they fall, vv11f. God is merciful, and would not suffer them to be too severely tempted, v13.’ (Charles Hodge)

Bear in mind that the overall theme of the present section concerns the propriety of eating food offered to idols. Continuing his rebuke of the Corinthian’s complacency, Paul turns from an illustration from athletics to an illustration from the history of Israel, showing that ‘the enjoyment of high privileges does not guarantee entry into final blessing.’ (Morris) Having spoken of the danger of forfeiting the prize, Paul sets forth the example of Israel as ‘Exhibit A’ (Fee) of those who failed to obtain the prize. The example is apposite in that God’s ancient people had a virtual baptism and Lord’s supper, yet still the vast majority of them perished because of a lack of self-control in relation to idolatry.

I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact – Paul seems to assume a knowledge of the OT accounts on the part of his (Gentile) readers. This, together, with his reference to ‘our forefather’ strongly indicates that we should view the OT as ‘our’ Scriptures, and the OT patriarchs as in a very real sense ‘our’ forefathers. But it also underscores the difference between a knowledge of OT facts (which Paul’s readers had) and an awareness of the significance of those facts (which they had not).

‘Would God permit those to perish for whom he had wrought so signal a deliverance, and for whose sake he sacrificed the hosts of Egypt? Yet their carcasses were strewed in the wilderness. It is not enough, therefore, to be recipients of extraordinary favours; it is not enough to begin well. It is only by constant self-denial and vigilance, that the promised reward can be obtained.’ (Charles Hodge)

Our forefathers – So called, even though the majority of those to whom Paul was writing would have been from a Gentile, not a Jewish, background. ‘The Jewish Church is related as parent to the Christian Church.’ (JFB)

Fee emphasises the continuity between the people of God of the Old and New Testaments:

‘By calling Israel “our fathers,” he emphasizes at the outset the Corinthians’ continuity with what God had done in the past. Since this is being written to a Gentile congregation, this language is sure evidence of the church’s familiarity with the OT as their book in a very special sense, and of Paul’s understanding of their eschatological existence in Christ (cf. v11) as being in true continuity with the past. God’s new people are the true Israel of God, who fulfil his promises made to the fathers. This identification is precisely what gives the warning that follows such potency.’

Tom Wright is another scholar who emphasises this idea that Christ and his people stand at the climax of the story that Israel has been enacting for centuries.  (See Kurt, Tom Wright for Everyone, ch. 3)

All – The word ‘all’ occurs 5 times in 4 verses.  Hodge notes the contrast between the ‘all’ and the ‘few’:

‘”All our fathers left Egypt; Caleb and Joshua entered the promised land.” All run, but one obtains the prize…The Israelites doubtless felt, as they stood on the other side of the Red Sea, that all danger was over, and that their entrance into the land of promise was secured. They had however a journey beset with dangers before them, and perished because they thought there was no need of exertion. So the Corinthians, when brought to the knowledge of the gospel, thought heaven secure. Paul reminds them that they had only entered on the way, and would certainly perish unless they exercised constant self-denial.’ (Charles Hodge)

‘The example of Israel proves that the possession of great religious privileges does not guarantee immunity from divine judgement.’ (Wilson)

The cloud – Ex 13:21,22; 14:19,24.  ‘The symbol of the divine presence and favour was before their eyes day and night. If any people ever had reason to think their salvation secure, it was those whom God thus wonderfully guided.’ (Hodge)

Baptised into Moses – ‘It is startling for the Christian, who is “baptised unto Christ,” to find such a reference to baptism. Probably we are to think of Moses as a type of Christ. Just as baptism has as one effect, the bringing of a man under the leadership of Christ, so did the participation in the great events of the Exodus bring the Israelites under the leadership of Moses Ex 14:31 can say, “they believed in the Lord, and in his servant Moses,” RV).’ (Leon Morris)

‘The cloud and the sea did for them, in reference to Moses, what baptism does for us in reference to Christ. Their passage through the sea, and their guidance by the cloud, was their baptism. It made them the disciples of Moses; placed them under obligation to recognise his divine commission and to submit to his authority.’ (Charles Hodge)

‘The Corinthians, it is true, have been “baptised,” but so were the Israelites; if the virtual baptism of the latter availed not to save them from the doom of lust, neither will the actual baptism of the former save them.’ (JFB)

‘”Baptism into” elsewhere in Paul is used of the believer’s incorporation into and union with Christ, Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27 Paul finds a parallel to the Christian experience of baptism in Israel’s crossing the Red Sea, which becomes her “baptism” or means of corporate identification with Moses (“into Moses”) as leader of Israel.’ (DPL)

For J.I. Packer, the issue is one of control and direction:

‘When Paul says that the Israelites were “baptized into Moses,” (1 Cor 10:2) he means that they were put under Moses’ control and direction. Thus, baptism into the name of the triune God signifies control and direction by God himself.’ (Concise Theology)

‘Paul’s use of baptismal language (in 1 Cor 10:1-12) speaks to a situation where the readers imagined that sacramental action carried its effective and operative power irrespective of moral choices. Paul insists, on the contrary, that the OT “sacraments” led to judgment on an idolatrous and immoral generation.’ (DPL)

‘Just as the Corinthians’ Christian life began with baptism, so “our fathers’” deliverance from Egypt began with a kind of “baptism;” but that, he will go on to say, did not keep them from falling into idolatry and thus falling short of the prize.’ (Fee)

For Green,

1. Baptism means commitment. ‘Just as the Israelites were committed to Moses through their crossing of the Red Sea, so Christians are committed to Christ through their baptism…’
2. Baptism means incorporation. ‘Baptised into Moses’ reflects the Christian use of ‘Baptism into Christ’, which in turn  reflects the favourite NT designation of a Christian as someone who is ‘in Christ’.  Baptism is the ‘sacrament’ of the journey from being without Christ to being in Christ.
3. Baptism means death and resurrection. This happened figuratively to the Israelites as the went through the water of the Red Sea.  They ‘died’ to all that was behind them in Egypt, and a door was opened that led from that death into new life in the Promised Land.

The reference to ‘spiritual food’ and ‘spiritual drink’ (v4) is probably meant to parallel the Lord’s Supper.

Spiritual food – This was the manna. Paul is not denying the physical nature of this food, but is making the point that it was supernatural in origin.  Cf. Ps 78:24-25.  So also with ‘spiritual body’ in 1 Cor 15.

Spiritual gifts are gifts of the Spirit:

‘Spiritual gifts and spiritual blessings are gifts and blessings of which the Spirit is the author. Every thing which God does in nature and in grace, he does by the Spirit. He garnished the heavens by the Spirit; and the Spirit renews the face of the earth. When therefore it is said, God gave them bread from heaven to eat, it means that the Spirit gave it; for God gave it through the Spirit.’ (Charles Hodge)

It is remarkable that Paul

‘chooses the manna and the rock, and not any of the Jewish sacrifices, as parallels to the Eucharist.’ (Robertson and Plummer)

The drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them – According to Barrett, ‘spiritual’ does not mean ‘allegorical’, but (quoting Schlatter) ‘that which comes from God and reveals him.’  Thiselton agrees: by calling the food and drink spiritual,

‘Paul does not mean immaterial, but that which is provided by the Spirit of God (cf. 1 Cor 9:11; 12:1; 15:44, 46), with all the ‘hallmarks’ of what is regarded as a miraculous provision.’

That rock was Christ – That is, Christ himself was the author of all their blessings, though they did not know it. In the OT, it was Jehovah who had been referred to as ‘The Rock’, Deut 32:15; Ps 18:2. The transference of this title to Christ has clear implications for the divinity and pre-existence of Christ. Anyway, Paul’s point seems to be that both the Israelites were, and the Corinthians are, in danger of rejecting Christ himself because of their idolatry.

Hodge:-

‘But in what sense was the rock Christ? Not that Christ appeared under the form of a rock; nor that the rock was a type of Christ, for that does not suit the connection. The idea is not that they drank of the typical rock; it was not the type but the anti-type that supplied their wants. The expression is simply figurative. Christ was the rock in the same sense that he is the vine. He was the source of all the support which the Israelites enjoyed during their journey in the wilderness.

‘This passage distinctly asserts not only the preëxistence of our Lord, but also that he was the Jehovah of the Old Testament. He who appeared to Moses and announced himself as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, who commissioned him to go to Pharaoh, who delivered the people out of Egypt, who appeared on Horeb, who led the people through the wilderness, who dwelt in the temple, who manifested himself to Isaiah, who was to appear personally in the fullness of time, is the person who was born of a virgin, and manifested himself in the flesh.’

Fee and Stuart (How to read the Bible for all its worth) identify this as an example of an Old Testament text that seems to have been used with a different meaning in the New Testament.  They explain that Paul is drawing an analogy, by saying, in effect,

‘”That rock was to them as Christ is to us – a source of sustenance in the same way that spiritual things are a sustenance for us.”  Paul’s language in verses 2-4 is highly metaphorical.  He wants the Corinthians to understand that the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness can be understood as an allegory of their own experience with Christ, especially at the Lord’s Table.’

The two covenants agree, because they have the same divine origin:

‘The spiritual homogeneity of the two covenants, and of the gifts accompanying them, rests on this identity of the Divine head of both. The practical consequence is obvious at a glance: Christ lived in the midst of the ancient people, and the people perished! How can you think yourselves, you Christians, secure from the same lot!’ (Godet)

The first four verses of this chapter form a single sentence in the original. The beginning of a new sentence pulls us up with a jolt.  After five positive examples, now come five negative examples.

God was not pleased with most of them – a ‘masterly understatement’:

‘Of all the hosts of Israel only two men – Caleb and Joshua – entered the Promised Land. The rest perished in the wilderness, or, as Paul puts it, they “were overthrown.” The verb “katastronnumi” lends a picturesque touch. It really means “to spread out.” Paul pictures the wilderness as strewn with corpses. This is not simply natural death. It is God’s sentence against the rebels.’ (Leon Morris)

Among the reasons for God’s displeasure:

‘Specific events in the wilderness wanderings were doubtless in Paul’s mind, and he especially recalled the golden calf (Ex 32), the hankering after the fleshpots of Egypt (Ex 17 etc.), the mass immorality with the daughters of the Moabites and the story of the brazen serpent.’ (Num 25, 21) (Prior)

Their bodies were scattered over the desert – Cf. Num 14:16. ‘What a spectacle is that which is called up by the apostle before the self-satisfied Corinthians: all those bodies, sated with miraculous food and drink, strewing the soil of the desert!’ (Godet)

Fee summarises Paul’s point here:

‘Just as God did not tolerate Israel’s idolatry, so he will not tolerate the Corinthians’. We deceive ourselves if we think he will tolerate ours.’

Therefore:

‘It is not enough…to be recipients of extraordinary favors; it is not enough to begin well. It is only by constant self-denial and vigilance, that the promised reward can be obtained.’ (Hodge)

10:6 These things happened as examples for us, so that we will not crave evil things as they did. 10:7 So do not be idolaters, as some of them were. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” 10:8 And let us not be immoral, as some of them were, and twenty-three thousand died in a single day. 10:9 And let us not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by snakes. 10:10 And do not complain, as some of them did, and were killed by the destroying angel.

These things occurred as examples – See also v11.  ‘These judgements are not recorded in Scripture as matters of antiquarian interest which have no bearing on the contemporary scene in swinging first-century Corinth. On the contrary, they are beacons set to warn “us” (everyone, including the apostle himself) not to follow Israel’s example in lusting after evil things, Num 11:4.

‘Although “character studies” can be abused by squeezing too much doctrine out of minor actions and incidental details, one of the important purposes of all of the stories of the Bible is to illustrate desirable and undesirable behavior.’ (Blomberg)

Do not be idolaters – The reference is to the golden calf incident. Paul quotes from the second part of Ex 32:6 which speaks of eating and drinking and pagan revelry; the first part of the verse refers to the associated idolatry. The judgement in this case was the slaying of three thousand by the Levites and then a plague. For the Corinthians, the specific form of idolatry was attendance at the pagan meals in the idol temples.

As it is written – Graham Goldsworthy suggests that, contrary to what is sometimes suggested, the NT writers were not in the habit of quoting the OT out of context. He points out that in citing part of Ex 32:6 here, Paul intends to bring to mind the whole narrative of Israel’s idolatry and the golden calf. (Gospel and Kingdom, 18f)

Pagan revelry – Both in Exodus and here it is likely that some kind of sexual orgy is being hinted at. If so, this leads naturally into v8.

Sexual immorality is mentioned here, because it formed a major part of much idolatry. Corinth had been notorious for cult prostitution. Paul has in mind the incident recorded in Num 25:1-9. Sexual immorality is mentioned in 1 Cor 5:1-5,10-11; 6:9-10,12-20.

In one day twenty-three thousand of them died – Num 25:9 reports this figure as twenty-four thousand.  Please see following note for a discussion of this apparent discrepancy.

We should not test the Lord – That the original read ‘Christ’ rather than ‘the Lord’ is regarded by Fee as being ‘almost certain’. Anyway, the idea is of putting God to the test, of seeing how far one can go, of seeing what one can get away with. Paul has in mind the people’s testing of the Lord by complaining about food, Nu 21:5-6. This episode is apparently referred to in Ps 78:18.

Such grumbling is recorded in Num 14:2,36; 16:11,41. It was punished on each occasion.

Destroyed by snakes…killed by the destroying angel – Brad Jersak (A More Christlike God) argues that, whereas in Num 16, 21 and 25 it is clearly God who sent these plagues, Paul now attributes them to ‘snakes’ and ‘the destroying angel’.  As far as Paul is concerned,

‘Satan is the destroyer, and God is not.  God is the redeemer.’

So, in Jersak’s thinking, the destruction was the result of God’s indirect, rather than his direct, action:

‘These were acts of God’s wrath in that God consented to allow natural and supernatural destruction to take its course through events set in motion by human decisions. In that sense, God is seen to have ‘sent’ the destroyer and ‘sent’ the destruction. God is perceived as commissioning the destruction and even the destroyer (Gen 19:14; Ex 12:29; Num 21:6).’

This, for Jersak, is God’s wrath as ‘giving over’ singful people to the forces of evil, as in Rom 1.

10:11 These things happened to them as examples and were written for our instruction, on whom the ends of the ages have come.

…on who the ends of the ages has come – Some have thought that the plural (‘ends of the ages’) indicates that Paul is thinking of the end of the old age and the beginning of the new age.  Paul and his readers live at the beginning of the new dispensation.  But (writes Schnabel in 40 Questions About the End Times) this would reflect an unnatural meaning of the word ‘telos’:

‘Since Paul believes that the old age and the new age overlap, it is more likely that he asserts here that successive periods of God’s intervention in the history of Israel and in the history of humankind have reached their respective ends.’

According to Morris, the meaning is,

‘that the culmination of all past ages has arrived. They are completed, and the lessons they teach are manifest. We should reap the fruits of the experience of these ages.’

‘The New Testament dispensation winds up all former “ages.” No new dispensation shall appear till Christ comes as Judge. The “ends” (plural) include various successive periods consummated and merging together (Eph 1:10; cf. Heb 9:26). Our dispensation being the consummation of all that went before, our responsibilities are the greater, and the greater our guilt, if we fall short of our privileges.’ (JFB)

The Old Testament scriptures remain authoritative for New Testament believers.  As Prang writes:

‘Paul’s unapologetic typological use of key Old Testament texts to explain God’s character more than hints that he did not perceive a disconnect between the precross and the postcross God. God’s character was not changed by Christ but revealed in Christ. There is no discrepancy between the God of the exodus and the God of the new covenant in Paul’s mind. The structure of Paul’s argument in these verses leaves the not-so-subtle impression that Old Testament Scriptures remain authoritative for New Testament followers. They are not only informative for religious understanding but instructive for Christian living. Paul’s vehement rejection of the saving quality of the Mosaic law does not equal a refutation of God’s character as revealed through his actions prior to the cross. New Testament Christians are not free to take a few grand ideas, like love, grace, forgiveness, and Spirit, and reinterpret these apart from the greater story of God.’

10:12 So let the one who thinks he is standing be careful that he does not fall.

If you think you are standing firm – It is likely that the Corinthians were over-confident of their standing because of a superstitious belief in the efficacy of the sacraments:

‘The Corinthians were cocksure of their position. But then, so had the Israelites been, and they had reaped nothing but disaster. Let the self-confident take heed, lest he fall.’ (Morris)

Theirs was an ‘illusory assurance’:

‘In view of the foregoing example the Corinthians must not presume that the mere possession of the privileges and gifts of the gospel can secure them against the possibility of falling from grace under all circumstances; that they at present do entertain such an illusory assurance is proved by their dangerously careless walk.’ (Wilson)

On the danger of falling:

‘No degree of progress we may have already made, no amount of privileges which we may have enjoyed, can justify the want of caution. Let him that thinketh he standeth, that is, let him who thinks himself secure. This may refer either to security of salvation, or against the power of temptation. The two are very different, and rest generally on different grounds. False security of salvation commonly rests on the ground of our belonging to a privileged body (the church), or to a privileged class (the elect). Both are equally fallacious. Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness; and they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort. False security as to our power to resist temptation rests on an overweening self-confidence in our own strength. None are so liable to fall as they who, thinking themselves strong, heedlessly run into temptation. This probably is the kind of false security against which the apostle warns the Corinthians, as he exhorts them immediately after to avoid temptation.’ (Hodge)

On May 14th, 1855, the young C.H. Spurgeon began a sermon on this verse as follows:

‘It is a singular fact, but nevertheless most certain, that vices are the counterfeits of virtues. Whenever God sends from the mint of heaven a precious coin of genuine metal, Satan will imitate the impress, and utter a vile production of no value. God gives love; it is his nature and his essence. Satan also fashioneth a thing which he calls love, but it is lust. God bestows courage; and it is a good thing to be able to look ones fellow in the face, fearless of all men in doing our duty. Satan inspires fool-hardiness, styles it courage, and bids the man rush to the cannons mouth for reputation. God creates in man holy fear. Satan gives him unbelief, and we often mistake the one for the other. So with the best of virtues, the saving grace of faith, when it comes to its perfection it ripens into confidence, and there is nothing so comfortable and so desirable to the Christian, as the full assurance of faith. Hence, we find Satan, when he sees this good coin, at once takes the metal of the bottomless pit, imitates the heavenly image and superscription of assurance, and palms upon us the vice of presumption.’

10:13 No trial has overtaken you that is not faced by others. And God is faithful: He will not let you be tried beyond what you are able to bear, but with the trial will also provide a way out so that you may be able to endure it.

The Corinthians had experienced nothing that was exceptional.  They could not excuse themselves, saying, ‘Yes, we sinned; but we had no choice.’

On understanding this verse in its context:

‘Paul is contrasting the “testing” that God allows to come to us (v. 13) with the very different dangers associated with our “testing” of God (v. 9).’ (Hays)

Taylor:

‘Robertson and Plummer suggest 10:12–13 provides two admonitions; one to the self-confident who think they have no need to be watchful and the other to the despondent, who think it useless to struggle with temptation.’

Ciampa and Rosner also draw attention to the context: the Corinthians have been struggling with temptation; but theres is not a special case – such temptation is common to all humanity.  These commentators add that Paul is thinking especially of the universal pull towards idolatry.

For Vang, precise interpretation depends on whom Paul is addressing here:

‘If Paul speaks to the weak (which would be a shift in emphasis), “temptation” could be a fitting translation. The weak could be tempted to participate in certain idol banquets for social prominence, financial security, or other reasons. If so, Paul recognizes the difficulty associated with declining an invitation to such an event and encourages them to recognize God’s faithfulness (Deut. 7:9). If he speaks to the strong, however (which seems most likely), who consider participation in such banquets their right, the word “test” may best express the sense. If they abstain from participation in these idol banquets, they are heeding Paul’s call to watch out that they do not fall. They will therefore pass the “test.” God is faithful; his test is not intolerable—they will be able to endure it. The test reveals their willingness to follow Christ. They do not need to worry; God will provide a way out of the test (Gen. 22:1–19.’

Trial – Same word translated ‘put to the test’ in v9.  Commentators differ about whether it refers to ‘temptation’, or to ‘testing’ more generally.

Includes both test and temptation (Morris).  Temptation (Soards, Johnson, Blomberg).  Temptation, especially the temptation to apostasise (Schreiner).  ‘The temptation to compromise and commit immorality’ (Winter, NBC).  ‘Either…an external trial (testing) or…the internal allurement of sin’ (Taylor).  ‘Trial, [either] in the form of seductions or of afflictions’ (Hodge).

Gundry:

‘The underlying Greek word carries the meanings of both “test” and “tempt,” since every test includes a temptation and every temptation includes a test.’

Cornerstone:

‘Tempting is something Satan does that afflicts people (7:5), but God does not tempt and is not tempted (Jas 1:13). His patience can be tested, and occasionally he can test individuals (Heb 11:17) and nations (Exod 15:25).’

Ciampa and Rosner:

‘Paul is contrasting the “testing” that God allows to come to us (v. 13) with the very different dangers associated with our “testing” of God (v. 9).’

‘The word translated temptation can also mean “test” or “trial” in the right contexts. Here, however, there is no indication that the Corinthians are suffering an unusual trial, while the context suggests that they are tempted to fall into some of Israel’s sinful patterns.’

Thomas Watson:

‘Elijah, that could shut heaven by prayer, could not shut his heart from temptation. 1 Kings 19:4. Job was tempted to curse God, Peter to deny Christ; and hardly ever any saint has got to heaven but has met with a lion by the way. Nay, Jesus Christ himself, though free from sin, yet was not free from temptation. We read of his baptism; then he was ‘led into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.’ Mt 4:1. No sooner was Christ out of the water of baptism, but he was in the fire of temptation; and if the devil would set upon Christ, no wonder if he set upon us. There was no sin in Christ, no powder for the devil’s fire. Temptation to him was like a burr on a crystal glass, which glides off; or like a spark of fire on a marble pillar, which will not stick: and yet Satan was bold to tempt him. It is some comfort that such as have been our betters have wrestled with temptations.’

Common to man – not excepting God-who-became man. ‘One son God hath without sin, but none without sorrow.’ (John Trapp)

God is faithful – and therefore will keep us secure:

‘Here, as in 1 Cor 1:9, and every where else in Scripture, the security of believers is referred neither to the strength of the principle of grace infused into them by regeneration, nor to their own firmness, but to the fidelity of God. He has promised that those given to the Son as his inheritance, should never perish. They are kept, therefore, by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation, 1 Pet 1:4. This promise of security, however, is a promise of security from sin, and therefore those who fall into willful and habitual sin are not the subjects of the promise. Should they fall, it is after a severe struggle, and they are soon renewed again unto repentance. The absolute security of believers, and the necessity of constant watchfulness, are perfectly consistent. Those whom God has promised to save, he has promised to render watchful.’ (Hodge)

He will not let you be tried beyond what you are able to bear – In context, this does not refer to the hardships of life  generally, but rather to temptation.  After all, Paul himself says that he and his companions were once ‘so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself’ (2 Cor 1:8f).  No: Paul has just said that we should not imagine that our temptations are different from those of others, and then use this as an excuse.  Temptations are common to all.  And so is God’s way out, through Jesus, our High Priest (Heb 2:18; 4:15).  And we are provided with the ‘sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God’ (Eph 6:17).  (See Eric J. Bargerhuff, The Most Misused Verses of the Bible, ch. 10)

Thomas Watson:

‘He knows our frame. Ps 103:14. He knows we are not steel or marble, therefore will deal gently, he will not over-afflict. As the physician, who knows the temper of the body, will not give physic too strong for the body, nor give one drachm or scruple too much, so God, who has not only the title, but the bowels of a father, will not lay too heavy burdens on his children, lest their spirits fail before him. He will correct in measure, for duration; he will not let the affliction lie too long. ‘The rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous,’ Ps 125:3. It may be there, but not rest. ‘I will not contend for ever.’ Isa 57:16. Our heavenly Father will love for ever, but he will not contend for ever. The torments of the damned are for ever. ‘The smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.’ Rev 14:11. The wicked shall drink a sea of wrath, but God’s children only taste of the cup of affliction, and their heavenly Father will say, transeat calix, ‘let this cup pass away from them.’ Isa 35:10.’

‘He will not try us beyond our strength; either he will make the yoke lighter, or our faith stronger.’

Truly:

‘No pharmacist ever weighed out medicine with half as much care and exactness as God weighs out every trial he dispenses. Not a milligram too much does he ever permit to be put on us.’ (Illustrations for Biblical Preaching, 388)

He will also provide a way out – An exit route:

‘The imagery is that of any army trapped in the mountains, which escapes from an impossible situation through a pass. The assurance of this verse is a permanent comfort and source of strength to believers. Our trust is in the faithfulness of God.’ (Morris)

This is not surrender or defeat, but conquest:

‘The word is vivid (ekbasis). It means a way out of a defile, a mountain pass. The idea is of an army apparently surrounded and then suddenly seeing an escape route to safety. No man need fall to any temptation, for with the temptation there is the way out, and the way out is not the way of surrender nor of retreat, but the way of conquest in the power of the grace of God.’ (DSB)

Cf. Ps 50:15; 2 Cor 10:13.

The same God who permits the testing, also provides a way out.

‘God does not want his people to sin, he shields them from insurmountable pressure to succumb to its allure. He is aware of whether a person is a sapling or a weathered oak, a novice recruit or a seasoned veteran. God also will clarify the thinking of the humble inquirer about what to do and provide the means to do it.’ (Cornerstone)

Thiselton makes a couple of points:

‘(1) No doubt some appealed to claims that they suffered “special” temptations. Paul replies that their experience is simply part of being human, alongside all misplaced desires, misdirected passions, self-deceptions, and illusions.

(2) Paul also insists that we can never say, “There is no way out.” God would not allow a temptation that is in principle irresistible, without their being some way of skirting around it or escaping it.’

For Taylor, the ‘way out’ is specified in the very next verse: ‘Flee from idolatry!’

But, adds Taylor:

‘The path of escape is often a path we are unwilling to take.’

‘Affliction has a sting, but withal a wing: sorrow shall fly away.’ (Thomas Watson)

Let us be like a bird for a moment perched
On a frail branch when he sings;
Though he feels it bend, yet he sings his song,
Knowing that he has wings.

Victor Hugo (1802-1885)

Here is great encouragement:

‘In a culture filled with moral depravity and pressures, Paul gave strong encouragement to the Corinthians about temptation. He said: (1) wrong desires and temptations happen to everyone, so don’t feel you’ve been singled out; (2) others have resisted temptation, and so can you; (3) any temptation can be resisted because God will help you resist it. God helps you resist temptation by helping you (1) recognize those people and situations that give you trouble, (2) run from anything you know is wrong, (3) choose to do only what is right, (4) pray for God’s help, and (5) seek friends who love God and can offer help when you are tempted. Running from a tempting situation is your first step to victory’ (see 2 Tim 2:22). (Life Application)

Avoid Idol Feasts, 14-22

10:14 So then, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.

Flee from idolatry – ‘They are not to stand and fight idolatry with their superior knowledge; their only safety is in flight.’ (Wilson) ‘They must not try how near they can go, but how far they can fly.’

10:15 I am speaking to thoughtful people. Consider what I say. 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one bread.

Participation – Gk. koinonia.  Often translated ‘communion’.

Donald MacLeod:

‘Like many other words in this area, the word for ‘communion’ requires to be demystified. It comes from the Greek word for ‘common’ and means ‘having things in common’ or simply ‘sharing’. At the Communion the Christians shared the bread, they shared the cup and they shared Christ. They had them in common.’

(A Faith to Live By)

Compared with the diaconal and eldership ministries, the NT has relatively little to say about the sacramental nature of the Christian ministry. Paul clearly regarded the administration of baptism as a subordinate duty, which he was willing to delegate to assistants, 1 Cor 1:17. Similarly, the Lord’s Supper is regarded as a corporate activity, 1 Cor 10:16-17; 11:25. It is reasonable to suppose, however, that presidency would have been provided by an apostle, prophet, or evangelist (if present), or by one of the local elders.

Mark Edward thinks that Paul is alluding to an alternative understanding of the Lord’s Supper, which is reflected in the Didache:

‘The Didache is an instructional book which many scholars agree contains traditions or layers of text predating the gospels. One of the earlier sections explains the Eucharist: the bread represents God’s people, who have been scattered and will be reunited during the end times (hinting at common Judean expectations of a restored Israelite nation; cf. LXX Deut 30.1–5; Mark 13.27), and the wine represents the vine of David’s dynasty, which is restored through Jesus.’

10:18 Look at the people of Israel. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 10:19 Am I saying that idols or food sacrificed to them amount to anything? 10:20 No, I mean that what the pagans sacrifice is to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot take part in the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 10:22 Or are we trying to provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we really stronger than he is?

The people of Israel – Lit. ‘Israel according to the flesh’.  As Wright observes, ”Paul is [t]here expounding the Exodus-narrative, in order to apply it to the Jew-plus-gentile ekklēsia in Corinth to whom he has said that ‘our fathers’ were under the cloud and passed through the sea. In teaching the ekklēsia to think of itself as the people who tell this story as their own and learn to live within it, Paul’s reference to Israel kata sarka is revealing. Had he wished to reserve the word ‘Israel’ to mean ‘Jews and Jews only’, he would hardly have needed to add the qualifying phrase. This then coheres with the tripartite division of the human race in 10:32: Jews, Greeks, and the ekklēsia tou theou, the church of God. Clearly Paul has not settled on a single designation for the Messiah-people. But, equally clearly, he constantly refers to that people in ways which indicate what his explicit argument in Romans 2–4, in 2 Corinthians 3, in Galatians as a whole and in Philippians 3 all make clear: that in Israel’s Messiah, Jesus, the One God has fulfilled the ancient Israelite hope, expressed by Torah, Prophets and Psalms alike, by bringing the nations of the earth to belong to Abraham’s people. Paul is acutely aware of the many painful paradoxes that go with this belief, but he will not draw back from it.’ (Paul and the faithfulness of God)

Live to Glorify God, 23-33

10:23 “Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds others up. 10:24 Do not seek your own good, but the good of the other person. 10:25 Eat anything that is sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience, 10:26 for the earth and its abundance are the Lord’s. 10:27 If an unbeliever invites you to dinner and you want to go, eat whatever is served without asking questions of conscience. 10:28 But if someone says to you, “This is from a sacrifice,” do not eat, because of the one who told you and because of conscience– 10:29 I do not mean yours but the other person’s. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 10:30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I blamed for the food that I give thanks for? 10:31 So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. 10:32 Do not give offense to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God, 10:33 just as I also try to please everyone in all things. I do not seek my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.

“Everything is lawful” –

But, as Wiersbe asks:

1. Will they lead to freedom or slavery? (1 Cor. 6:12)
2. Will they make me a stumbling block or a stepping-stone? (1 Cor. 8:13)
3. Will they build me up or tear me down? (1 Cor. 10:23)
4. Will they only please me, or will they glorify Christ? (1 Cor. 10:31)
5. Will they help to win the lost to Christ or turn them away? (1 Cor. 10:33)

Do not seek your own good, but the good of the other person – Cf. Php 2:4 n

The earth and its abundance are the Lord’s – Cf. Ps 24:1.

‘Evidence for the practice of a meal in the temple is found in the following well-known Oxyrhynchus papyrus which Lietzmann regards as ‘a striking parallel’ to the reference in 1 Cor 10:27: ‘Chaeremon invites you to dinner at the table of the lord Serapis (the name of the deity) in the Serapeum tomorrow the 15th at the 9th hour’ (= 3 p.m.) (quoted and discussed in Chan-Hie Kim’s essay, ‘The Papyrus Invitation’, JBL 94, 1975, pp. 391-402). An invitation to a meal of this character, whether in the temple or in a private house, would be commonplace in the social life of the city of Corinth, and would pose a thorny question for the believer who was so invited.’ (NBD)

‘The situation envisaged by these verses is a Christian’s acceptance of an invitation to a meal in a private house (10:27). In such a circumstance the believer is free to eat the food set before him, making no inquiries as to its ‘past history’, i.e. where it comes from or whether it has been dedicated in an idol shrine. If, however, a pagan, at the meal, draws attention to the food and says, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice’ – using the pagan term hierothyton – then the food must be refused, not because it is ‘infected’ or unfit for consumption, but because it ‘places the eater in a false position, and confuses the conscience of others’ (Robertson-Plummer, I Corinthians, p. 219), notably his heathen neighbour (10:29).’ (NBD)

‘A servant girl, who was once asked how she knew she was a converted Christian, replied, “Well, you see, I used to sweep the dust under the mat, but now I don’t.” It is possible to visit somebody else as if Jesus Christ lived there, to type a letter as if Jesus Christ were going to read it, to serve a customer as if Jesus Christ had come shopping that day, and to nurse a patient as if Jesus Christ were in that hospital bed. It is possible to cook a meal as if we were Martha in the kitchen, and Jesus Christ were going to eat it.’  (Stott, Authentic Christianity, 251)

Do it all for the glory of God – Cf. 1 Pet 4:11.

Do not give offense to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God –

Do not give offense = Do not cause to stumble.

Greeks = Gentiles.

Paul is glancing back at the personal examples he has given in 1 Cor 9:19-23.

Michael Bird: ‘the church of God’ seems here to comprise something like a ‘third race’.  (DPL, 2nd ed., art. ‘Supercessionism’)

Ciampa & Rosner: Jews and Greeks refer to all unbelievers.  Christians (whether ethnically Jews or Gentiles) form a diffeent category.

Eager, as a dispensationalist, to maintain a distinction between Israel and the church, Ryrie (Study Bible) states:

‘The mention of Jews separate from the church shows that Israel was not replaced by the NT church but remains distinct in this age.’

But this, I think, is reading too much into this verse.  We can look elsewhere for reasons why Paul distinguishes between these three groups:

‘Paul distinguishes between Jews and Greeks because they differed in what counted for them as an obstacle to their conversion. And he distinguishes God’s church from both Jews and Greeks because Christians, who make up the church, differed from the Jews and Greeks in what counted for them (the Christians) as occasions for apostasy. ‘ (Gundry)

Barrett notes that Paul is probably still thinking of food laws.  His overarching aim is neither to enjoy or renounce certain foods, but to win others for Christ.  And this must be his readers’ aim too.  So, they must not outrage the scruples of others, be they Jews, Gentiles or Christians.

Thiselton comments:

‘In 10:1–22 Paul has stressed the continuity of the Church with Israel; the phrase the Church of God in this context calls attention at the same time to a discontinuity, as if to imply that “the people of God” are partly redefined, although not in exclusivist terms since their roots and basis of divine promise and covenant remain in continuity with Israel’s history. (See Romans 9–11.)’

I…try to please everyone in all things – cf. Php 2:4.

As Wiersbe explains:

‘He was not suggesting that he was a compromiser or a man-pleaser (see Gal. 1:10). He was affirming the fact that his life and ministry were centered on helping others rather than on promoting himself and his own desires.’