1 Corinthians 10

CHAPTER X

Old Testament Examples and the Lord’s Supper in Warning, 10:1–22

The fact that one may, indeed, partake of the abundance of divine grace and yet be lost in the end as Paul has feared in regard to himself in the last verse of the preceding chapter is now verified by notable examples from the Old Testament which exhibit the terrible experiences of the ancient Jews.

1 Corinthians 10:1

1 For I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, that our fathers all were under the cloud, and all went through the sea, and all were baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate of the same spiritual food, and all drank of the same spiritual drink; for they were drinking out of a spiritual rock that accompanied them, and the rock was Christ. But with the most of them God was not well pleased, for they were struck down in the wilderness.

“I do not want you to be ignorant” is a litotes for, “I want you to know,” and is one of Paul’s favorite turns of expression for introducing important communications and instructions; and γάρ offers the following as a substantiation of the preceding, namely Paul’s concern lest he become a castaway—he who was so richly blessed. The address “brethren” appeals to the hearts of the Corinthians. What they must know and take to heart is sketched in detail. When Paul calls the ancient Jews “our fathers” he connects the Israelites with the New Testament Church, for both are God’s people although some of each church are lost. Five times Paul repeats πάντες when he is describing the grace and the spiritual blessings which these fathers received. God included them “all”; if any of them were excluded and did not remain included, this was due wholly to their own action.

First they were all delivered from the bondage of Egypt by the miraculous hand of God. God was present in “the cloud,” which is called a pillar of cloud in Exod. 13:20–22. All the Israelites were under this divine shelter when they came to the Red Sea. The imperfect ἦσαν in this list of verbs in the aorist does duty for the historical aorist since εἶναι has no aorist form. “All” likewise passed through the Red Sea and completed their deliverance from Pharaoh. Regarding the part played by the cloud in this passage through the sea compare Exod. 14:19, 20. Note also v. 22: “And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon dry land.” What a wonderful deliverance the fathers experienced!

1 Corinthians 10:2

2 The readings vary between the aorist middle ἐβαπτίσαντο (which would be causative: “let themselves be baptized,” R. 808; J. H. Moulton, Einleitung in die Sprache des Neuen Testaments, 256) and the aorist passive ἐβαπτίσθησαν, “were baptized,” but the latter has the stronger textual authority although the middle appears in Acts 22:16. Being under the cloud and passing through the sea are here termed a baptism, they were analogous to Christian baptism. The preposition ἐν is usually termed instrumental, “by the cloud,” etc. This might be conceived as an immersion in so far as the cloud would cast a shadow over the Israelites but scarcely in regard to the waters of the sea which in no way covered the Israelites who walked through “upon dry ground”; only the Egyptians were immersed, and that not figuratively but very literally.

As for the cloud, this moved behind the Israelites, its function being to separate them from the Egyptians. No water from the cloud or from the sea was applied to the Israelites. It was likewise the function of the sea to separate.

What happened in the case of the Israelites is thus analogous to what happens through baptism in our case. In both instances there is water. In the type, the cloud and the sea separate the Israelites from the Egyptians. In baptism we are separated from the world. Secondly, the type shows a unification—Israel was henceforth a separate and sacred body, set apart for God alone. So baptism now unites all the baptized into one body that belongs wholly to God. Similarly the flood immersed the evil generation of Noah’s day but bore aloft Noah’s family high and dry; in this it, too, typifies Christian baptism, 1 Pet. 3:21. It separated Noah from that wicked generation and set him and his family apart unto God. This it, too, did by means of water.

The phrase εἰςτὸνΜωϋσῆν may be patterned after the similar New Testament phrase εἰςτὸνΧριστόν, but it can never be taken in the sense of “into Moses” or Christ. No baptism nor anything else could in any conceivable sense carry the Israelites “into” Moses. The idea expressed is one of union: “to,” “unto,” or “for Moses.” This symbolical baptism united the Israelites to Moses as God’s representative to them, the Old Testament mediator, in whom was foreshadowed Christ, the New Testament eternal Mediator, Deut. 18:18. The deliverance from the Egyptian bondage through Moses by this symbolical baptism through the cloud and the sea likewise typifies our deliverance from the bondage of sin and of death through Christ by means of Christian baptism.

1 Corinthians 10:3

3 As all the Israelites received the type of baptism, so all of them also received the analogous type of the Lord’s Supper. The point of similarity lies in this that “they all” did eat, “they all” did drink “the same food” and “the same drink.” All received and enjoyed the identical spiritual blessing. The manna given in the desert is called “spiritual food” because it was in no wise a product of nature but “the corn of heaven” and “angels’ food,” Ps. 78:24, 25, a gift from the Spirit of God. Its origin was spiritual, and thus, although it nourished only the body, which Jesus points out so forcibly in John 6 in his discourse on the Bread of Life, this manna should have had an effect also upon the soul. Paul says no more regarding “the food.”

1 Corinthians 10:4

4 Concerning the “spiritual drink” he says much more. The sentence introduced with γάρ explains, for this part of the subject is not as self-evident as is the other; moreover, a fanciful legend had grown up which calls for denial and correction. The two second aorists ἔφαγον and ἔπιον give the summary (constative) record of the historical fact: “they ate and they drank”; the imperfect ἔπινον presents an explanatory description: “they were drinking,” drinking all along. No natural and ordinary rock can possibly furnish drinking water for anybody, whether he be in the desert or elsewhere. For this reason γάρ explains: “they were drinking out of a spiritual rock that accompanied them.” Not once but, as the imperfect states, continually the Israelites were drinking, and from no mere natural rock although the water was twice made to gush out of such a rock, but out of a spiritual rock which was supernatural, divine, and not left behind in the desert as those two natural rocks were but accompanied the Israelites wherever they went in their wanderings. Moreover, Paul writes πέτρα, a rocky mass, a cliff of rock, and not πέτρος, a single, detached boulder; compare Matt. 16:18 regarding the same important distinction.

The old Jewish legend relates that after the first water-miracle recorded in Exod. 17:1–7 the rock which Moses struck rolled along on the journey of the Israelites until at the time of the death of Moses it disappeared in the Sea of Gennesaret. The second miracle, recorded in Num. 20:2–13, is connected with this same rolling rock. This rock had been lost on the journey when Miriam died, to whose merit the first miracle was ascribed. This rock did not return until the second miracle was to be wrought. Hence it was also called “Miriam’s Well.” Then also the well mentioned in Num. 21:16–18 is identified with the rock which gushed forth water as recorded in Num. 20:12, so that the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says on Num. 20:19: “The well that had been given as a present to them climbed up with them on the high mountains and from the high mountains came down with them into the valleys, surrounded the entire camp of Israel, and refreshed them, each at the door of his tent.”

Yes, Paul says, a modicum of the legend is true: a rock did accompany Israel throughout the desert wandering, a rock out of which they kept drinking all of the time. But this was not the rolling boulder of the legend although on two notable occasions a natural rocky cliff was used by Moses at God’s command. This was a mass of rock that was far greater and far higher and entirely spiritual in its nature: “and that rock was Christ.” This supernatural rock that never allowed Israel to perish of thirst in the desert—as any other similar expedition would quickly have perished—was Christ, the Son of God, who later became incarnate for our salvation. From him came the water when upon two occasions two natural rocks miraculously sent out streams of water, but he, and he alone, provided water for the Israelites day by day although he performed no miracle to accomplish this. Let no one imagine that the Israelites just happened to find water whenever it was needed, save upon those two occasions when none was to be had until the miracle furnished it. A wondrous provider accompanied them (not: “followed” as our versions translate). Just as he gave them manna daily, so daily he, too, provided water for them.

In fact, the God who led Israel out of bondage, who appeared to them in the pillar of cloud and of fire, who gave them the law and brought them to Canaan, was Christ, the same Christ who died for us on the cross and arose in glory. The people of the old and the people of the new covenants are one people, they are all under Christ. For this reason he gave them similar blessings: first a type of baptism, then the sacrament of baptism; first a type of spiritual eating and drinking, then the sacrament of divine food and drink in the Lord’s Supper. Behind that manna and that water in the desert were the power and the presence of Christ just as he was in the pillar at the sea and in the dry road through the sea. Never once did he leave his people.

To Israel he could give only types, to us he gave the antitypes. Yet the types are as truly spiritual for the support and the nourishment of faith as are the richer antitypes. Each operates on its own plane, is suited to its own time. This is true with regard to all the types and the antitypes of the Scriptures. Paul is here not spinning fancies from his rabbinical mind; he is writing the deepest and the truest realities as they are paired in the two covenants.

Both “the food” and “the drink” given in the desert are called “spiritual.” When in regard to the latter Paul adds that its source, too, was “spiritual,” being even Christ himself, he does not thereby intend to deny that the source of the manna was “spiritual.” While he feels constrained to say more regarding the drink because of the foolish Jewish legend that was connected with the rock, one can readily see that both the food and the drink came from the same source. Christ set the entire table for the Israelites in the desert during all those many years, and they should have recognized his presence and have worshipped his power and his goodness.

1 Corinthians 10:5

5 But in this very essential point they failed: “But with the most of them God was not well pleased,” which is a litotes for “he was altogether displeased,” he was angry. The negative οὑ, which is placed far forward, has the strongest emphasis, R. 418. There is a tragic contrast between the five repeated “all” and the Lord’s blessing on the one side and “the most of them” and the Lord’s curse on the other side. Every normal consideration and every right reasoning demanded that under this shower of divine grace, deliverance, and benefaction “all” should conduct themselves in such a manner that God would be well pleased with “all.” But they so conducted themselves that he was well pleased with only a few and violently displeased with all the rest.

It is needless to furnish detailed explanations as, for instance, Stephen does. Instead of enumerating the logical reasons, which might allow room for argument, Paul at once introduces the summary evidential reason (γάρ) which at once excludes all argument and proves the Lord’s displeasure beyond a peradventure: “for they were struck down in the wilderness.” The two historical aorists, “was not well pleased” and “were struck down,” simply state the facts; they are tragic enough as such. God is the agent behind the passive: the Israelites were struck down by him. Some died violent deaths, some natural deaths; but all of them save Joshua and Caleb died before Canaan was reached. Even Moses died before the Israelites crossed the Jordan because in one instance he gravely displeased and dishonored God. “They were struck down” does not mean that all those who died in the wilderness were also forever damned. Some were saved although they suffered this temporal judgment because of their sins.

1 Corinthians 10:6

6 After stating the sad facts regarding the Israelites during their desert journey Paul adds a broad application. Now these things became our examples to the intent that we may not be persons lusting after evil things even also as they lusted.

“These things” is the subject, and “our examples” the predicate; the number of the verb is attracted to the predicate since it immediately precedes the verb. The margin of the R. V.: “in these things they became figures of us,” makes “these things” an adverbial accusative, really, “as to these things”; but this reading is excluded by v. 11: “These things happened unto them by way of example,” where “these things” is unquestionably the subject; the two verses are nearly exact parallels. The aorist passive form ἐγενήθησαν has the same sense as the middle, “became”; the Koine loved such passive forms and produced many of them and preferred them to the older middle forms. Paul tells the Corinthians that these happenings have come to be τύποι, “types” or “examples,” for us in order that we may take warning from them.

The infinitive after εἰςτό is final: “to the intent that,” etc., or: “in order that,” etc. Instead of using the verb: “in order that we may not lust,” Paul uses the copula with the noun: “that we may not be lustful persons,” and thus uses the genitive κακῶν as the object of this lusting: “persons lusting after evil things,” such things as are morally inferior and therefore ought to be shunned by us. “Even also as they lusted” adds the verb to the noun “lustful persons” and summarizes the entire lustful conduct of the Israelites by the use of the aorist tense. This emphasis on lust by means of the noun and the verb makes prominent the sin that so displeased God when he observed the conduct of the Israelites under the wondrous stream of blessings showered upon them during their desert journey. Instead of rejoicing in the spiritual blessings which God extended to them they constantly lusted after “evil things,” those that were carnal in their very nature, and thus they aroused God’s wrath.

1 Corinthians 10:7

7 The general application is now followed by the specifications which Paul has in mind. Neither be ye idolaters as some of those, as it is written, The people sat down to eat and to drink and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication as some of those committed fornication and fell in one day twenty-three thousand. Neither let us tempt the Lord as some of those tempted and perished by the serpents. Neither murmur even as some of those murmured and perished by the destroyer.

“Neither,” μηδέ, is continuative as δέ often is, R. 1185. In all four instances the injunctions are given in the present tense and thus forbid a course of conduct. The first and the last are present imperatives, the other two are present subjunctives, which is a mere variation in style. The collective ὁλαός is construed with a singular and then with a plural verb and thus touches the idea of unity and that of plurality contained in the term. While λαός is a general term for a large mass of people it is often used to designate the chosen people of God and here helps to indicate the serious nature of the wrong committed when a people of this kind practices idolatry. Regarding the perfect tense “it is written” compare 1:19.

The quotation is taken from the LXX of Exod. 32:6, which describes a case of indirect idolatry, namely the gay feast in connection with the golden calf. This image was idolatrous although it was intended for Jehovah; Paul, however, fixes attention on the feast which was entirely after the manner of idol worship. By doing this Paul strikes home directly at the Corinthians who thought that they, too, could preserve their relation to Jehovah while, pretending to make use of their liberty, they ate, drank, and amused themselves at idol celebrations. This very thing the Israelites of old attempted when they feasted upon the offerings brought to the golden calf and then rose up “to play,” to dance and to have a gay time after the fashion they had learned from the idolatrous Egyptians. In this case Paul does not add that the Israelites were punished since this was well known.

1 Corinthians 10:8

8 The second specific case merely restates the facts as recorded in Num. 25:1, etc. Fornication was a regular practice in connection with idol celebrations. Paul thus adds the warning: “Neither let us commit fornication,” etc., and intimates to the Corinthians to what their participation in idol festivities may lead.

The canonical Hebrew text, the LXX, Philo, Josephus, and the Rabbis, all have 24, 000 whereas Paul writes 23, 000. The explanation that Paul’s memory is at fault is too easy since it exempts the commentator from all further research. The other explanation that Paul names only the number that perished “in one day,” and that another 1, 000 perished later, is not acceptable. Why should Paul not mention the entire number? Both figures appear to be round numbers, for few will contend that exactly 23, 000 or 24, 000 fell on that day. The number being so large, the figures intend only to approximate: more than 23, 000 counted exactly, but not entirely 24, 000. Taken in this sense, both figures are correct.

Moreover, we see why Paul takes the lower general estimate. We notice that he keeps writing that only “some” of the Israelites committed this sin and that sin. He is picturing these sinful outbreaks, not in the worst possible light, but only in as bad a light as consistency with truth compels. As he writes “some” where he could write “many,” so he writes 23, 000 where he could write 24, 000. We often make our warnings too sharp and too strong, and our readers or hearers begin at once to discount our words and to evade the effect we seek to produce. Paul avoids this mistake. He discounts wherever it is possible; hence his words strike the harder.

1 Corinthians 10:9

9 Paul again merely restates the Old Testament fact. The compound verb found in the injunction really means: “Let us not try out the Lord,” and it is stronger than the simple form that follows: “as some of them tried (or tempted)” the Lord. When a compound verb is repeated, the simplex is regularly used; hence no difference is intended here. To try out the Lord is to go to the limit and to see whether he will show himself as God by punishing those who thus try him out.

The trial to which the Israelites put the Lord is recorded in Num. 21:4–6. This case is well chosen with a view to the conditions prevailing in Corinth. The Israelites were aggrieved because they had to forego the abundant supply of food which they once enjoyed in fertile Egypt. They loathed “this light bread,” the manna. The situation was analogous in Corinth. The Christian profession demanded that the Corinthians should forego the old heathen enjoyments.

But instead of rejoicing in their deliverance through Christ the Corinthians were dissatisfied and longed for the old pagan celebrations. It was not so much the participation in pagan sacrificial feasts which tried out the Lord but the dissatisfaction with the restrictions on their new faith. The imperfect ἀπώλλυντο, “they were perishing,” pictures the scene which was enacted when this punishment “by the serpents” occurred, more and more of the Israelites died as the infliction continued.

1 Corinthians 10:10

10 The two instances of murmuring during the history of Israel are recorded in Num. 14 and Num. 16. Paul refers to the latter which also involved a rebellion against Moses and Aaron. Moreover, as a result of the latter only a part of the people perished, namely 14, 700, whereas the former murmuring resulted in a curse upon the entire people so that none of the adults who had left Egypt save Joshua and Caleb entered Canaan. “By the destroyer” also applies only to the violent destruction that occurred in the second instance; this expression cannot very well refer to the gradual dying in the desert. Paul’s choice of just this case of murmuring as a warning for the Corinthians is again to the point, for the Corinthians also complained about Paul who voiced the Lord’s will to them.

To murmur is to give audible expression to unwarranted dissatisfaction. Back of all murmuring against God and against his representatives is unbelief. God is no longer trusted, in fact, he is charged with leading us and treating us in a way that is wrong. Exactly that was the trouble with the Israelites, and for this reason God punished them so severely. Voices were beginning to be raised against Paul among the Corinthians; if they remained unchecked, the gravest danger might result. Hence Paul points to the Israelites as a warning. Some think that ὀλοθρευτής with the article signifies Satan, but the Biblical analogy points to an angel of God as being “the destroyer.” The Hebrew account mentions no agent.

All of the four specific examples chosen by Paul apply quite directly to the Corinthians and are chosen for this very reason. The first two are closely related, likewise the second two. Idolatry and fornication appeared together in Corinth. Trying out God and because of dissatisfaction murmuring against God and against his apostle threatened to occur if the desire to commit the other sins should grow. The fourfold warning thus adequately meets the case of the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 10:11

11 After having cited these examples in detail Paul returns to the general admonition begun in v. 6. He repeats that admonition and extends it. Now these things continued to come to those by way of example, and they were written for an admonition to us upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

The first statement is only a variation of the main clause of v. 6. The verb is now an imperfect, συνέβαινον, “continued to come,” and calls upon us to see “the things” one after the other as they are happening to the Israelites. For the noun “examples” or types, τύποι in v. 6, Paul now substitutes the adverb “by way of example,” or typically, τυπικῶς. These accounts picture in types and in a typical manner what God’s reaction must be in all similar cases. “These things … to those people,” the two used in contrast (R. 703) imply: “similar things … to us.” What happened to the Israelites is not exceptional by any means; it will in its way happen to God’s people every time they turn away from him.

Beside these happenings as such Paul places the written record which God made of them. That is done because we know about “these things” only through this record. The aorist “was written” states only the fact, and the passive points to God as the agent through whom these things were put into writing. God had these things recorded for a purpose: “for an admonition to us” who would need to be reminded of these things in afteryears and would thus need a trustworthy record of them. This divine purpose God is carrying out now in the case of the Corinthians when, through Paul, he uses these things for their admonition, νουθεσία, which consists of words that remonstrate and reprove, compare Eph. 6:4; also 1 Sam. 3:13: οὑκἐνουθέτειαὑτούς, Eli did not even reprove his wicked sons with words. When Paul writes “us” he includes himself in God’s admonitory purpose.

Paul’s comprehensive world view is again in evidence in the relative clause: us “upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” Instead of the abstract ουντέλεια, the “completion” of the eons, Paul writes more concretely τὰτέλη, “the ends” of the eons. These “ages” or eons are all of the preceding eras since time began. All of them focus in the age of Paul and the Corinthians. The end of each preceding era points to the final or the Christian era. We Christians are the goal of all past history. All that the past ages have to tell us, as this is found in the divine written record, is to bear its fruit in us; all of these past events would have happened and would have been recorded in vain if at the apex of the ages their instruction, their admonition, and their warning were to go unheeded.

A world fund is now at our disposal. We dare not let it lie idle, for only the Parousia is yet to follow. The perfect κατήντηκεν, “have arrived,” “have come,” implies that the goal of these ends of the ages has already been reached in the past, and that Paul and the Corinthians are now thus at that goal.

1 Corinthians 10:12

12 Standing, as we do, at the apex of the ages, with the entire Old Testament record spread out before us, a simple conclusion follows, one that summarizes the very “admonition” for which that record was made. Wherefore let him that thinks he is standing take heed lest he fall. He who thinks thus may or may not have a good reason for so thinking. The very possibility that he may not have is enough.

The second perfect ἑστάναι is always used in the sense of the present: “is standing.” To stand means to be safe in the Christian faith and life. The Corinthians felt quite sure on this vital point and even prided themselves on what they deemed the fullest kind of evidence for their standing, namely their “knowledge” and their Christian “right.” For their sakes, however, Paul writes this pithy warning: “take heed lest he fall,” μή is clearly conjunctional, “lest,” R. 430. The aorist points to an actual fall into sin. Some stress the tense so as to mean at once and completely to fall from grace into condemnation and judgment. This is, of course, included even as the Old Testament examples show that some fell and were lost. Yet an actual fall may not at once go that far even as in the Old Testament examples not all were lost. “Lest he fall” warns against all falling into sin and intends to keep us in entire safety, working out our salvation with fear and with trembling, aware of all the dangers and the pitfalls that threaten us.

For this purpose, that we may walk guardedly, the Old Testament record was made. Let us use it accordingly.

1 Corinthians 10:13

13 In order the more to urge the Corinthians to heed this admonition Paul adds: None save human temptation has overtaken you, but God is faithful, who will not permit you to be tempted above your ability but will make together with the temptation the way out, namely the ability to bear it.

A temptation is any inducement to sin. The verb λαμβάνω, here the perfect εἴληφεν, is regularly used with reference to occurrences or conditions that “take” or “overtake” a person. Whatever temptation overtook you in the past, Paul tells the Corinthians, was only of the human kind, ἀνθρώπινος, such as comes to a human being, and such as a human being may endure. The translations: “such as is common to man,” A. V., or, “such as man can bear,” R. V., circumscribe the adjective by interpreting it. What Paul means by “human” temptation he himself states in the next sentence, a temptation which God keeps within our ability to endure. “Human” is, therefore, not in contrast to “devilish,” nor does it denote only human origin in contrast with superhuman origin, for the devil is behind every temptation that assails a Christian.

The question has been raised as to whether Paul is still warning the Corinthians or is now encouraging them. Is he intimating that temptations may overtake them that are worse than the ones they have had to face thus far? Or does he point to their past temptations as samples of the kind which they will continue to face and be able to overcome also in the future? The exegetical answer lies in the following. God will not allow them to be tempted above what they are able to bear. Thus “human temptation” = a temptation that is not above human strength to withstand.

If temptations past and future are also such, this means encouragement. But should Paul not rather frighten the presumptuous Corinthians instead of encouraging them? He has already given them a serious warning in v. 12. Besides, some Christians among the Corinthians are weak, and Paul does not forget them. Especially they need encouragement. After the warning which points to the danger of their falling even the presumptuous need to be encouraged lest they now grow discouraged and become afraid.

With the adversative δέ Paul points the Corinthians to God and calls him πιστός, worthy of all reliance. On him the Corinthians are to depend and not on themselves for escape from the danger that always accompanies temptation. And God is, indeed, trustworthy as is demonstrated by the way in which he controls temptation. He does this in a twofold way. For, in the first place, he is the one “who will not permit you to be tempted above your ability.” We can always rely on him for that. God reduces the tempting power so that it does not exceed our power to resist. God sets fixed bounds even to the devil, beyond which temptation dare not go as we see so clearly from the case of Job. We translate: “above what you are able,” with the smoother phrase: “above your ability.”

The agent behind the passive infinitive “to be tempted” cannot be God “who will not permit.” Even by stressing the second verb so as to mean who “will make” the way out, God cannot be the tempter. “Neither tempteth he any man,” James 1:13. Paul does not designate the tempting power in the present connection; “every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed,” James 1:14. The fact that πειρασμός and the corresponding verb speak about “temptation” and not merely about “trial” the context indicates beyond a doubt.

In the second place, we can rely on God who “will make together with the temptation the way out, namely the ability to bear it.” Paul does not say that God makes both the temptation and the way out. Paul does not at all say how the temptation is made, he indicates only that, when it is made, God provides “the way of escape” (R. V.) from its deadly embrace. The person tempted may not use “the way out,” he may be caught and brought to fall, but this will be due wholly to his own perverse heart. Judas would not use the way out although Jesus opened it to him again and again. Peter used it and escaped.

We regard τοῦδύνασθαιὑπενεγκεῖν (second aorist from ὑποφέρω) as epexegetical, namely as stating what the way out is, R. 1067, 1087; we translate: “namely the ability to bear it.” The way out is “to be able to bear the temptation,” or as our versions translate: “that ye may be able to bear (endure) it.” This may, however, be understood as indicating only God’s purpose: the way out “in order that you may be able,” etc. If purpose were intended by this expression, Paul would not be telling us just what the way out of temptation is; we should be obliged to guess it. Moreover, in order to make this an infinitive of purpose Paul ought to write out its accusative subject ὑμᾶς, for this is always and necessarily done when the subject of the infinitive, as in the case under consideration, differs from the subject of the preceding finite verb. The two statements: first, that God does not allow us to be tempted above our ability; secondly, that he makes a way out through this our ability, are only the negative and the positive sides of one and the same act of God. Both phases of God’s act enter in our divinely wrought ability to endure the temptation and not to fall under its impact.

In chapters eight and nine the question regarding the eating of idol meats is considered from the viewpoint of the weak brethren who may be spiritually injured by such an action. In chapter ten this question is viewed from the angle of the persons themselves who thus eat and may thereby incur temptation and be brought to fall. Both views are naturally complementary. Yet the one has been pitted against the other. Paul is thought to contradict himself. At one time, we are told, he writes in a mild way and then in a severe way; at one time he does not prohibit this questionable eating and then reverses himself and absolutely prohibits it.

Hence these chapters cannot have been written as a part of one and the same letter. Interpolations are evident to the critic’s mind. So he posits various hypotheses, none of which are satisfactory.

1 Corinthians 10:14

14 Paul now draws his conclusion for the Corinthians from the entire preceding paragraph. To begin with, Paul’s plea is summed up in one injunction. Therefore, my beloved, continue to flee from idolatry! The address “my beloved” is strongly affectionate and urgently pleading. It expresses Paul’s love far more fully than the less intense “brethren” or “my brethren” would. The present imperative is durative: “continue to flee”—let that be the mark of your entire conduct. This injunction in no way implies that the Corinthians are already contaminated with idolatry, but it does imply that they are in danger of becoming contaminated with the gravest of all sins, which strikes directly against God. They must keep entirely at a distance from anything and everything of an idolatrous nature.

1 Corinthians 10:15

15 While the injunction to flee from idolatry is the only conclusion that Christians can draw from the examples cited from Israel’s history, the vital facts connected with the Christian profession that are evident to all eyes in our holy of holies, the Lord’s Supper, lend ultimate authority to that injunction. These vital facts Paul does not merely emphasize on his own authority and then tell the Corinthians what he thinks their conduct in accordance with them should be. Paul never asks mere blind obedience; he always labors to secure obedience as a result of thorough conviction. So he writes: As to sensible men I speak; do you yourselves judge what I claim.

A man is “sensible” when he understands and thus judges in an intelligent manner. The aorist κρίνατε asks for a definite and a final decision, one that, once made, need not be made again; and ὑμεῖς is emphatic: “you yourselves” or “you for your part.” We should also note the difference between λέγω and φημί when they are used side by side: “I speak” and “I claim.” They, of course, perceive what Paul states and tells them; but they are to judge what Paul claims and asserts.

1 Corinthians 10:16

16 The questions which Paul now asks bring out the vital facts. All of them are plain, and all of them are undisputed. On the basis of these Paul wants the Corinthians to make a definite decision on their own account. Sensible Christian people will not only at once give the self-evident answers to these questions but will also perceive the force of these answers as far as conduct is concerned. The cup of the blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?

Paul mentions the sacramental cup first because he intends to elaborate the statement regarding the sacramental bread. The construction is the same in both questions; “the cup” and “the bread,” two nominatives, are placed forward, and each has the copula ἐστί at the end of the question; yet each of these two nominatives is attracted inversely and is made an accusative by the accusative relative that follows, R. 488, 718.

“The cup” is a natural grammatical (not rhetorical) figure which names the vessel when its contents are referred to, here the sacramental wine. To “the cup” the genitive “of the blessing which we bless” is attached, while to “the bread” just the relative clause “which we break” is added; but the force is the same: both the cup and the bread were blessed and received by the communicants. The expression: “the cup of the blessing” is an allusion to the third cup of the Passover, which originally bore that name: kom habberakah, because a blessing was pronounced over it. The sacramental cup was, however, not merely called “the cup of the blessing” like that third Passover cup, a consecratory blessing was and had to be pronounced over the sacramental cup. The present tense εὑλογοῦμεν denotes the action that necessarily took place, i.e., whenever the Sacrament was celebrated, R. 880.

Paul writes the cup “which we bless” and uses the plural and thereby indicates that the Sacrament belongs to the congregation; all that the pastor does when he is administering it is really done by the congregation through the instrumentality of the pastor. If the cup (and the bread) is not blessed by consecration, no sacrament is received. Paul does not say what words of blessing the apostolic church used. We are quite certain that they were not the words that were originally spoken by Christ when he consecrated the elements, for these words have not been preserved to us for the very reason, too, that we are not to repeat them. The power of Christ’s words of blessing, once spoken when he instituted the Sacrament, extends to all time. Comparing Mark 14:12; Luke 22:17, etc.; and Matt. 26:26, 27, we conclude that Christ’s original words contained both blessing and thanksgiving; beyond that we cannot go.

Our Sacrament complies with Christ’s original words and has abiding power when we truly obey his sacramental command: “This do.” In order to make sure of this essential point the church uses the so-called words of institution when she consecrates the elements and adds the Lord’s Prayer instead of a prayer of her own. The words of institution plus this prayer are our εὑλογεῖν. The consecrated cup must, of course, also be received by the communicants in order that there may be a sacrament. But not merely a blessing of some kind suffices to make the cup thus received “a communion of the blood of Christ,” it must be a specific sacramental blessing, i.e., one that certainly connects the cup with Christ and his original and efficacious institution of the Sacrament.

Paul cannot write “the communion” of the blood of Christ (A. V.), for such a statement might leave the impression that this is “the only” communion. John 6:53 shows that faith alone partakes spiritually of Christ’s blood although this is not a sacramental communion. So Paul writes “a communion” when he is speaking of the blood and when he is speaking of the body, namely one that is sacramental. “Communion,” κοινωνία, with the genitive of the object denotes actual and real participation, here an actual and a real participation in the blood of Christ, i.e., the blood shed on the cross for the remission of our sins. If either the wine of the cup or the blood of Christ is unreal, then a “communion” between them is also unreal, i.e., none exists. The cup, i.e., its contents, which is received by drinking, mediates this “communion” and not our faith or any other means or act.

As for ἐστί, this is the copula, and it can never mean “represents.” The fact that a true and a real communion between the cup and the blood is predicated is evidenced also by the purpose for which Paul uses this statement, namely to warn the Corinthians against the table and the cup of devils because partaking of this table and of this cup would be a communion with devils, not a mere symbolical or figurative but a real communion with devils.

The statement regarding “the bread” is similar. Paul does not need to repeat the genitive and the relative: the bread “of the blessing which we bless,” for this is understood. Whereas the relative clause: “which we bless,” that is used with reference to the cup, mentions the consecration and omits the distribution, the clause used with reference to the bread: “which we break,” does the reverse. Both the consecration and the distribution are necessary in order to have the Sacrament. Since the essential point in regard to both the cup and the bread is the “communion,” Paul introduces no variation in this part of his statement. The blood and the body are each named separately and thus indicate the sacrifice on the cross.

The breaking refers to the thin, flat cakes of bread which were at first used in the Sacrament; these were probably used also in Corinth. The act of breaking this bread in no manner symbolizes the death of Christ. The Scriptures attest that the body of Christ was not broken. Nor is breaking of bread ever a symbol of a violent death or of death in any form (Krauth). In the Sacrament the breaking is done for the sake of distribution only. No counterpart such as spilling or pouring out occurs with regard to the cup.

1 Corinthians 10:17

17 Yes, the Corinthians must say that such a communion with the body and the blood of Christ takes place through the bread and the wine in the Sacrament. Paul could have attached what he now adds concerning this communion to his statement regarding the blood as well as to that regarding the body; he prefers the latter. “Is this bread not the communion of the body of Christ?” Paul takes for granted that the answer will be: “It is indeed,” and thus proceeds: Because there is one bread, one body are we, the many. This states the obvious result of the “communion” which the Corinthians would admit on the basis of Paul’s question. The one sacramental bread, which mediates the sacramental communion with Christ’s body, makes all who partake of that bread, no matter how numerous they may be, one body.

It is unfeasible to make “one bread” a predicate to “we are,” to coordinate it with “one body” and thus to translate: “For we, being many, are one bread and one body,” A. V.; or: “seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body,” R. V. This is linguistically untenable and breaks the continuity of Paul’s thought. It has Paul say that because we Christians are one bread and one body, therefore the sacramental bread is a communion of Christ’s body. Our being one would make the sacramental communion.

This is not true. We are made one by the one bread and its communion with Christ’s body. In addition, to call us Christians “one bread” introduces an odd figure, one that is unnecessary since we are called “one body” in the very next statement. We supply ἐστί after εἷςἄρτος, and all is clear, and Paul’s statement is true.

Faulty as the translations offered in our versions are, the R. V. obscures the sense when in its margin it translates ἄρτος “loaf”: “we are one loaf.” This idea is rather fantastic. It is not clarified by the marginal translation: “seeing that there is one bread,” i.e., loaf, for the bread is not “one” merely as bread. At each celebration in each congregation a different supply of bread was used. If loaves of bread were used in Corinth, a number of loaves would be required, and this number would be determined by the number of communicants. The matter becomes clear when we carefully consider Paul’s statement.

He is speaking about all of the bread that is used in all of the communion celebrations in all of Christendom, and all of this bread he calls εἷςἄρτος. All of it is made “one” by the consecratory blessing which is followed by the distribution and the eating. More than this, all of it is made “one” by the one body of Christ of which it is the “communion” for all who partake.

This “one bread,” thus made one sacramentally, makes all of the communicants in Christendom ἓνσῶμα, “one body.” The argument is from the cause (“one bread” as the “communion of Christ’s sacrificed body”) to the effect (“the many” communicants made “one body”). If this bread were only a symbol of Christ’s body it could make all of the communicants only a symbolic body and not a spiritual body.

The matter is so important for the point which Paul seeks to drive home to the Corinthians that he explains by a brief restatement: for we all partake of the one bread. First “the many,” οἱπολλοί, spreading out all of them in their great number, then, as Paul loves to do, “we all,” gathering them into one mass, οἱπάντες. How are the many made one spiritual body? We all partake of the one bread, τοῦἄρτου with the article of previous reference, of the consecrated bread just described.

The preposition ἐκ is merely pleonastic since this verb is also used with the genitive alone. The ἐκ phrase cannot be regarded as causal so that μετέχομεν would have its object understood: “for we all, due to the one bread, partake” (of the one body). If this were Paul’s thought, the object “of one body” would have to be written out. What Paul tells the Corinthians is that all of us who partake of the one sacramental bread are thereby made one spiritual body. And we may add that Paul is not speaking in symbolism; as the cause of this oneness is objective and a reality, so also is the effect. We are actually and not merely symbolically one spiritual body. The fact that now and then unworthy communicants also partake of the sacrament is not taken into consideration.

1 Corinthians 10:18

18 The Corinthians certainly agree with Paul in their judgment (v. 15) that because the one sacramental cup and bread are the communion of the one sacrificial blood and body of Christ they make the entire multitude of communicants in Christendom “one body.” This was true also with regard to the people of the old covenant as the Corinthians well know. Behold Israel after the flesh. Are not they who eat the sacrifices communicants of the sacrificial altar? You Corinthians certainly know that they are. The imperative that bids the Corinthians look at Israel lends a touch of vivacity. Paul is speaking about Israel “after the flesh,” which as a nation gathers about the great altar of burnt sacrifice in the Temple at Jerusalem just as all Christendom now gathers about the sacramental altar of Christ. The question which Paul again asks invites the sensible judgment of the Corinthians.

This time Paul mentions the eating: “are not they who eat,” etc.? From the consecration of the cup he advances to the distribution of the bread and now to the eating because the Christian Sacrament is not complete until the communicants eat and drink, and the consecration as well as the distribution have the eating and the drinking as their purpose. So the analogy is between the eating of the Israelites and the eating of the Christians, each at their altar. An Israelite who refused to eat of the sacrifices would thereby dissociate himself from the altar of Israel and from everything that was embodied in that altar. Every Israelite who did eat by that eating shared in everything for which the altar stood and which that altar intended to communicate to him.

Paul uses the significant adjective κοινωνοί in order to match the noun κοινωνία which was used with reference to the Christian sacrament in v. 16. Lacking the corresponding adjective in English, we are compelled to use the noun instead: are they not “communicants” of the sacrificial altar? They certainly are no less. To eat is to share in the communion of the altar. To eat is far more than ordinary eating that merely fills the stomach with meat. To eat is to have a part in all of the benefits of the altar and of the sacrifices laid upon it, i.e., to have the forgiveness which this altar mediates, the standing among God’s people which it bestows, and thus the holiness with which it enfolds and surrounds. No, it was no small thing, no mere indifferent, meaningless act to eat of Israel’s sacrifices that were brought on the altar of burnt offering.

1 Corinthians 10:19

19 Before making his application to the participation in pagan sacrifices and pagan altars Paul first cuts off a false deduction which someone might make from his analogy of the Israelite altar as though this analogy involves the idea that the pagan gods and the pagan altars are real gods and altars of real gods. What, then, am I claiming? That an idol sacrifice is something? or that an idol is something?

These questions again appeal to the good Christian sense of the Corinthians. When Paul asks what he is thus claiming he refers to the real communion which the Israelites had with their altar of the true God who exists. So he adds the double question regarding the idol sacrifice and regarding the idol itself. Has Paul forgotten what he has written in 8:4? Does he now in this statement regarding Israel imply that idols are after all real beings as the pagans suppose, and that idol sacrifices are sacrifices to real beings?

1 Corinthians 10:20

20 The very opposite is the truth. Paul’s analogy is true, altogether true, although idols are not real beings at all. On the contrary, I am claiming that what the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils and not to a god. And I do not want you to be communicants with devils.

The strong adversative ἀλλά is elliptical: “On the contrary, what I claim is this that,” etc. Thus Paul not only denies what the two preceding questions imply regarding a possible reality of pagan gods but most positively asserts what the real fact is regarding the sacrifices which the Gentiles offer. It is a great mistake to imagine that back of their idolatry and their idol sacrifices there is nothing but an empty vacuity. True enough, as 8:4 makes plain, the gods of the idols have no existence whatever; no being by the name of Jupiter exists, and this is true with respect to all other gods. But something does exist, something that is far more terrible than these pseudo-gods, namely an entire kingdom of darkness which is hostile to God, a host of demons or fallen angels who are ruled by the greatest of their number, namely Satan, Eph. 2:3; 6:12.

All altars, all sacrifices, and all worship that are not intended to serve the true God are thus actually though not necessarily consciously and intentionally devoted to these demons. As these wicked angels, under the leadership of Satan, rule the entire evil world, so in particular they are the originators of the spiritual darkness of which idolatry is the most terrible evidence. Hence all idol sacrifices, whatever the pagan ideas concerning them may be, are really sacrifices unto devils. Compare Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; 95:5, which show that Paul is in a manner quoting Scripture in v. 20.

No wonder Paul adds: “And I do not want you to be communicants with devils.” As he did in v. 18, he again uses the adjective κοινωνοί with the genitive for which we must again use the English noun. This time the genitive names the beings into whose communion or union one is brought by eating of idol sacrifices. The infinitive is durative: Paul does not want the Corinthians to become involved in such a union. For to be in any manner in communion with devils is to be cut off from communion with God, Christ, his body and his blood, and the blessings of Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:21

21 Paul states this in the most positive way and even repeats the statement in order to make it the more impressive. You cannot drink the Lord’s cup and the devils’ cup; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the devils’ table.

Paul is speaking, not of the physical, but of the moral possibility. Both infinitives are durative: you cannot “be drinking … be partaking.” A misguided Christian may attend an idol feast and not immediately lose his Christianity but he cannot continue this wicked practice without spiritual ruin to himself. “The Lord’s cup” is the one received in the Lord’s Supper, that conveys the Lord’s sacrificial blood to the communicant. “The Lord’s table” is the entire sacrament. Paul makes the cup prominent here whereas a moment previously in v. 17 he makes the bread prominent and thus keeps a fine balance.

He uses exact parallels when he writes “the devils’ cup” and “the devils’ table.” The original question deals with idol meats only and says nothing about the wine served at idol feasts. But the entire idol feast with any and all food and drink is celebrated in honor of the idol. Hence it is impossible that a Christian communicant should drink of the wine thus served or partake of anything that is served on the banquet table. Compare the invitations to idol feasts noted in connection with 8:10. And thus Paul has answered fully the question of the Corinthians concerning things offered to idols.

1 Corinthians 10:22

22 Since this is the true situation regarding participation in idol feasts, a Christian who refuses to heed Paul’s words has only one terrible alternative. Or are we engaged in provoking the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? The present indicative should not be read as though it were the deliberative subjunctive. The latter would be much weaker: “would we provoke,” etc. The change from the second person to the first should also be noted.

Is this, Paul asks, what “we” are doing? He quietly implies that what is right for the Corinthians is, of course, right also for Paul and thereby emphasizes the enormity of thus provoking the Lord who gave himself for us. Paul alludes to Deut. 32:21: “They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities,” LXX, “with their idols” which are frequently termed “vanities.”

It is safe to arouse only one who is weaker than we are. Hence the final question with its implied negative answer: “You certainly do not intend to say that we are stronger than he?” The very idea is preposterous and thus reduces this alternative to an absurdity. To say that God may be roused to jealousy, vindictive zeal, and wrath is to apply anthropopathic terms to him. The Scriptures constantly speak about God in this manner, yet without in the least attributing to him the imperfections and the faults that attach to human jealousy and human anger. Unbelief will always mock at these terms and misuse them for its own purposes until the day of reckoning comes. Since heaven’s high language exceeds all human speech, God graciously condescends to speak to us in such human terms as we can understand. Yet we well know that they express the divine realities in an inadequate manner.

Conduct in Detail, 10:23–11:1

1 Corinthians 10:23

23 The main question about attending idol feasts has been fully answered with a peremptory negative. But this still leaves the question in regard to meats that were put on sale in the markets for the general public and the question about dining privately at some pagan’s home where meat might be served which originally came from some idol sacrifice and was sold in the market. See the introductory remarks to chapter eight. Paul now answers these questions in detail.

He reverts to the principles already elucidated in 6:12, and 8:10, etc. All things are lawful, but not all things benefit. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. In 6:12 we have seen that the Corinthians set up the principle of complete liberty in adiaphoris and embodied it in the expression: “All things are lawful.” Paul assented to the principle and now again does so. But he added and does so again the self-evident and normal limitations: first, “but not all things benefit,” namely spiritually; secondly, “but not all things build up” spiritually. Regarding the details of conduct now to be discussed Paul thus says to the Corinthians: “The principle is right enough; let us now apply it, but, of course, only with its natural limitations.

For it is folly to insist on doing things just because they are lawful when these things bring no benefit but rather hurt and harm either me or others. It is absurd to insist on doing things just because they are lawful when these things do not build up and further the Christian life but damage and destroy it for me or for others.”

1 Corinthians 10:24

24 Paul therefore at once interprets the principle of Christian liberty of which the Corinthians seek to make so much and which they do not after all really understand. Let no one seek his own (interest) but that of the other. This interpretation itself may be called a principle, one that must always be combined with the principle of liberty if the latter is to be applied successfully. This second is, of course, the principle of love about which Paul has already said so much. So he merely restates it in a simple way. This time he formulates it in a concrete way.

He tells the Corinthians in the tersest manner what they are to do when they are following the promptings of love. He purposely states the principle in the broadest form so that it may answer all of the questions that now await solution. Not to seek one’s own interest, τὸἑαυτοῦ, is, of course, not to be understood in an absolute way but must be considered in connection with the seeking of the interest of the other person. It excludes all selfish regard which cares nothing for the interest of other people. It demands that we have regard for the good of others also, for by doing this we shall serve also ourselves in the best possible manner.

1 Corinthians 10:25

25 After the principle has been adequately stated, Paul proceeds to make the specific applications. He begins with a consideration of the meat that is sold in the open markets. Everything that is on sale in a butchershop eat, making no investigation because of the conscience.

A μάκελλον, Latin macellum, is an ordinary butchershop where meat is on sale, “being sold” as the participle states. Paul tells the Corinthians to be altogether unconcerned about the nature of the meat that is sold in the ordinary butchershops; they are to buy and to eat and to be satisfied. This means that Christians are to make no investigations regarding the origin of any piece of meat; they are not to inquire whether it is a portion from an idol sacrifice or not. “Making no investigation because of the conscience,” means that the conscience is to be left out of the matter entirely. “Do not trouble about your conscience—buy and eat.” The phrase “because of the conscience” modifies only the participle. Paul does not say: “Do not make any inquiries because your conscience may be disturbed if you buy a piece from some idol sacrifice, or if you should not be certain that the butcher is telling you the truth, and the piece may after all be taken from an idol sacrifice.” This would be poor ethics, merely closing the eyes so as not to see.

“Because of the conscience” refers, of course, only to the buyer’s conscience and not to that of some other person who happens to see him buy or discovers that it is idol meat. If Paul had intended the latter he would have had to say as much. Paul’s injunction applies especially to those who may be inclined to be weak and easily disturbed by unnecessary conscientious scruples. He urges them for their own sakes as well as for the sake of others to use their Christian liberty in the manner indicated. They are injuring no one by doing so. It is a mistake to inquire too carefully for reasons of conscience. Why?

1 Corinthians 10:26

26 For the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. Without an introductory formula such as, “it is written,” Paul quotes Ps. 24:1; he expects his readers to know that he is quoting. “Fulness,” πλήρωμα, is always to be understood in the passive sense: that by which something is filled. The earth and its fulness include all food; and this belongs to the Lord who created all of it; and no idol or demon can permanently appropriate it for himself. We are mistaken when we act as though this could be done. Buying food for our own table is an entirely different thing from dining at a feast that is given in honor of some idol. In this succinct manner Paul answers the first question. After the principle has been elucidated, the answer is quite simple.

1 Corinthians 10:27

27 Now the next question. If one of the unbelievers invites you, and you desire to go, everything placed before you eat, making no investigation because of the conscience.

The same rule of conduct applies in this case: eat everything-and make no investigation of a conscientious nature. This unbeliever may or may not have bought idol meat for the meal, it makes no difference. Relatives and friends of Christians who are themselves still unbelievers may invite these Christians in friendly fashion. When Paul adds: “and you desire to go,” i.e., to accept the invitation, he does not imply that, if he could, he would forbid the acceptance of such an invitation. All that he implies is that for some reason or other that is not connected with the question of idol meat the believer may not wish to go.

1 Corinthians 10:28

28 Yet, when he is dining out, a complication may arise; δέ marks the following statement as being something that is different from the general rule. But if someone shall say to you, This is sacrifice meat, do not eat because of him that showed it and (because of) the conscience.

When Paul spoke about the invitation to dine out he used a condition that expresses reality; when he now speaks about a weak conscience he uses a condition that expresses expectancy. Paul writes merely τὶς: if “somebody” shall speak in this manner. Since no modifiers are attached, this “somebody” is often understood to refer to anybody save perhaps the host himself, to some pagan, perhaps, who offers friendly warning or is curious to see what the Christian will do, or to one with hostile intent who is eager to put the Christian into an embarrassing position. But Paul has not left τὶς so undetermined. The entire discussion has been concerned with the exercise of our liberty with reference to offending weak Christians. The two preceding directions, v. 25–27, in particular are intended for just such weak Christians. “Someone” is, therefore, one of these. In this entire section Paul says nothing whatever about the exercise of our Christian liberty with respect to pagans.

The case is, then, that of a weak brother who may also be present as a guest and may have done what Paul has warned not to do, namely to inquire about the origin of the meat that is served at the meal, and may thus have discovered that some of it or all of it is “sacrifice meat.” When he makes his discovery known at the table he would naturally use the term “sacrifice meat” and not “idol meat” in deference to the pagan host. The very fact that this weak brother feels such grave concern which will not let him rest until he has found out what he wishes to know about the meat, and the additional fact that he then feels constrained to communicate his finding to the other Christians, show that he is weak and needs the tender consideration of love.

Here the strong Christians must then use their Christian liberty in a truly intelligent and loving way: “Do not eat!” Their liberty lies in the fact that they may or may not eat, yet not in the sense that they may do as they please, eat or not eat without reason or for a wrong or a foolish reason. Their liberty lies in the ability to choose between eating and not eating with entire freedom as long as they are guided by both true knowledge and true love. To choose blindly where one can choose intelligently is to abuse liberty and not really to use it; and the same is true with regard to choosing inconsiderately where one can just as well choose considerately. Liberty is given to us, not in order to hurt ourselves and others, but in order to help ourselves and others. Why not eat in this case? “Because of the person that showed” whence the meat came. Why not on his account? The epexegetical καί answers: because of him “and of the (his) conscience.”

1 Corinthians 10:29

29 Paul does not write: “and (because of) his (αὑτοῦ) conscience.” He states it far more emphatically: Conscience now I say, not at all thine own, on the contrary, that of the other, for why is my freedom judged by some other conscience? Paul thus says: “As far as thy conscience is concerned, it would make no difference as to the nature of the meat, thou couldst eat; but for the sake of this weak brother’s conscience and his timid and disturbing scruples refrain from eating.”

This pronouncement requires explanation (γάρ) lest someone think that his conscience is bound and controlled by some other person’s conscience. My own freedom of conscience is not subject to the ignorance and the weakness of some other individual’s conscience. He cannot arrogate to himself the right to sit in judgment on my liberty and to order me to do what his conscience considers right and forbid me to do what his conscience considers wrong. In regard to this meat may conscience is wholly free to eat as I may desire. In fact, my conscience would not at all raise the question whether this is “sacrifice meat” or not. So it is not at all my own conscience but altogether that of the other person for which I have regard in this case. “Why is my freedom judged by some other conscience?” The question answers itself. No other conscience can and dare restrict my freedom.

We read ἱνατί and not ἵνατί because we supply γένηται, R. 739. Note the difference: τὴντοῦἑτέρου, “that of the other person,” the particular one in this case; while ἄλλης = “any other” conscience no matter whose. By refraining from eating, Paul says, I wish only to shield the other person’s weak conscience, and I do not for one moment make his or any other person’s conscience a judge of my liberty, as to what I may or may not do, must or must not do.

1 Corinthians 10:30

30 This is amplified. If I for my part partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered for what I on my part give thanks?

The question again answers itself. Whoever would slander or speak evil of me would do so without a just reason. Such a slander would not at all apply to me. Why not? One reason has already been stated, namely “my liberty,” my own conscience being wholly free in the matter. To this first reason another is added which is stated twice for the sake of emphasis and each time with an emphatic ἐγώ, “I for my part.” How does Paul, who here and so often uses himself for the purpose of exemplification, eat of this meat? “I for my part partake with thankfulness,” and again, “for what I on my part give thanks.” He eats this meat as being a gift from God and in no other way.

He eats it with thankfulness in his heart and with a prayer of thankfulness on his lips. What is wrong with that? Nothing. What right has any man, when he hears that Paul does this, to revile him for so doing? He has no right whatever.

The dative χάριτι does not mean “by grace” as our versions translate, i.e., “by God’s grace”; for this emphatic dative is restated in the clause “for what I on my part give thanks.” Whoever considers the meat in question idol meat could naturally not receive it with thankfulness and a prayer of thanksgiving. “I for my part” and its twice repeated emphasis contrast Paul and his thankfulness for God’s gift with “the other” who beholds only idol meat and cannot give thanks.

The verb βλασφημεῖν means more than “to criticize”; it always refers to slanderous language used in connection with God, here to Paul’s connection with God through the meat which is God’s gift, and which no idol can appropriate to itself in distinction from God.

1 Corinthians 10:31

31 Paul now draws the final deduction with οὗν. This is again a broad Christian principle of conduct. In v. 23, 24 he began with the principle that centers in the spiritual benefit of our fellow men. He must go farther than that. Underlying this principle is another that is still more vital, in fact, the ultimate principle of all Christian action. Whether, therefore, you eat or drink or do anything, do all to God’s glory!

The connection alone suggests to Paul the two activities of eating and of drinking, but he now broadens both so as to indicate any and all eating and drinking apart from any particular food received at any particular time or place. Then Paul reaches out to any and to every deed a Christian may do: “or do anything,” there is no emphasis whatever on the indefinite pronoun. “All” is just as broad and comprehensive.

“To God’s glory” is to be taken objectively, so as really to glorify God, and not merely subjectively, so that we think we are glorifying him. This must be the sense, for the weak Christian might, indeed, think that he is glorifying God when in his ignorance and his false scrupulosity he shrinks from eating idol meat while he is reclining at a table of a friend and judges other men’s consciences by his own faulty conscience; but God is not glorified thus. Again an unscrupulous Christian might think that he is glorifying God when he tramples on a weak brother’s conscience and does him the gravest spiritual injury; but God is not glorified thus. Each truly glorifies God when each acts according to the full measure of his knowledge and his love, and when he seeks constantly to increase that knowledge and that love. We do all things for “God’s glory” when the excellence of God’s attributes is made to shine forth by our actions so that men may see it.

1 Corinthians 10:32

32 How we are to do all things to God’s glory is stated by an appositional sentence which is joined to the previous one without a connective. Be devoid of offense as well for Jews, as for Greeks, as for the church of God. We make God’s glory shine out to men when we are ἀπρόσκοποι to all of them, “devoid of offense,” when in all things we act so that no one can take real offense, i.e., stumble in regard to God and the gospel. Some may, indeed, take offense, namely wrongfully; we are not to give offense. The former no Christian can avoid; the latter all Christians are to avoid.

Paul broadens the principle of Christian conduct in two directions. Starting with idol meat, Paul lays down a principle which includes all eating and all drinking and all actions of a Christian. Starting with knowledge plus love to our brethren, Paul reaches up to God, to our supreme obligation to him. Again starting from our weak brethren, Paul finally includes all men. Here Paul at last touches the Christian’s relation to the non-Christian world yet combines this relation with that to the church of God. All of it is summed up in the one word, ἀπρόσκοποι: Give no one just cause for offense. And here all three, Jews, Greeks, and the church, are on the same plane.

Paul does not enter into details. Offense to Jews may not be offense to Gentiles; offense to these may not be offense to Christians. Offense to any one and to all of these three classes will, however, center in this one point, that by some foolish or inconsiderate action we place a stumbling block in their path in regard to Christ and the gospel. No action of ours is to prevent a Jew or a Greek from coming to Christ, and no action of ours is to prevent a Christian from remaining with Christ and from ever drawing nearer to him. This is negative, but “devoid of offense” naturally includes its corresponding positive. All of our actions are to help the Jew and the Greek to come to Christ; they are also to help to hold and to strengthen our fellow Christians in their attachment to Christ.

“Jews” and “Greeks” are objective terms, for all men alike use these designations and not only each of these groups when they are speaking of themselves. “The church of God” is a subjective term, for men generally do not use it, we alone use it with reference to ourselves. When the world today speaks of “the church” it does not put into that term the sense which Paul had in mind when he wrote “the church of God.” If the world would accept Paul’s designation it would condemn itself as being outside of the assembly (church) that belongs to God; and this the world does not intend to do, at least not seriously. The term “Christian” as a parallel to “Jews” and “Greeks” was not yet in general use in Paul’s time, so he writes ἡἐκκλησίατοῦΘεοῦ, “the assembly of God.”

1 Corinthians 10:33

33 Beside the negative “devoid of offense” Paul places the positive: even as I also please all men in regard to all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, that they be saved.

From the second person plural which he has employed in v. 31, 32 Paul returns to the individualizing first person singular. How does Paul act so as to give no offense to any? He pleases all men in regard to all things. He has already described this in detail in 9:19–25, where he sums up: “I am become all things to all men.” There is no fear that Paul will be misunderstood as though he seeks to curry favor with all men and yields to them in all things, even in those that are questionable. “I please” is written entirely from Paul’s standpoint and not from that of “all men,” many of whom he actually displeased when they discovered his true motive, namely that he intended to win them for Christ.

Thus he also at once adds: “not seeking my own advantage but that of the many.” He forgot, in fact, entirely disregarded his own interest and sought only the interest of “the many,” who are so named in contrast with himself as being only one individual. The idea expressed is that one man’s interest is as nothing when it is compared with the interest of many men. Paul carries this thought to the highest point in Rom. 9:3, where he expresses himself much as Moses did in Exod. 32:32. Here he stops short with a reference to the earthly advantage which he might seek for himself in contradistinction to the heavenly advantage which he desires to secure for the many. The subfinal ἵνα clause mentions the apposition to “the advantage of the many,” namely “that they be saved” (not final: “that they may be saved.”) The aorist means “actually saved,” and the passive indicates that God is the one who saves.

11:1) What Paul thus exemplifies by a reference to himself he urges upon all. Be you imitators of me even as I also am of Christ! Those who imitate Christ have a right to call upon others to imitate them. The point of comparison between Christ and Paul has already been clearly stated: Christ sought not his own advantage but that of others. He came to seek and to save. Let this mind that was in Christ and then in Paul be also in us.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.