Intro:

The structure of the paragraph should be noted. Vv. 19–22 form a unit, for which v. 19 serves as the introduction and 22b as the conclusion. (For the possibility that this is an expression of chiasm, see N. W. Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament [Chapel Hill, 1942], 147; if so, it is in form only, not in content, as Weiss, 244, observes.) The four groups illustrate v. 19 and the “all things to all people” of v. 22b. The two middle terms (about law) are qualified with a μὴ ὢν αὐτός (“not being myself”). All six sentences conclude with a ἵνα-clause, the first five with the verb κερδαίνω, the final, generalizing one with the more common synonym, σώζω. V. 23 then serves as the double reason for all this: for the sake of the gospel; so that Paul might share in its blessings. Thus:

Intro:

Being free from all, I became slave to all,

in order to win the many.

to the Jews, as a Jew

in order to win Jews;

to those under the law, as under the law

(although not really myself under the law)

in order to win those under law;

to those not under the law, as not under the law

(although not lawless)

in order to win those not under law;

to the weak, weak

in order to win the weak.

Concl.:

I have become all things to all people,

in order by all means to save some.

Reason:

I do all things

(1) for the sake of the gospel.

(2) in order to share its blessings.

Almost all commentaries. See also Dungan, 25–26; Willis, “Apologia,” 36–38 (although in his view the paragraph does not deal with evangelism but with Paul’s stance when among Christians). The major difficulty with this view of course, besides the fact that Paul does not himself suggest as much, is that the paragraph does not offer a model of self-restraint, but of something considerably different—abstinence or indulgence (v. 21 can hardly be understood otherwise), depending on the context!

E.g., the free/slave motif in v. 19; everything for the sake of the gospel; the use of the verb κερδαίνω (“gain, profit”) as reflecting his “pay”; and the final purpose clause, that he might share in its blessings.

See esp. Hock, “Tentmaking,” 558–61; this is noted also by H. L. Ellison, “Paul and the Law—‘All Things to All Men,’ ” in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin; Grand Rapids, 1970), 195–202.

Cf. Hurd, 127–31.

So Chadwick, “All Things,” 263.

On the question of whom the four groups represent, see on vv. 20–22.

Cf. Hurd, 128–30.

The close ties between vv. 17–18 and v. 19 are often overlooked (see the following note). The beginning of v. 19 is so closely related to what precedes that Hock has argued that it concludes vv. 15–18 rather than begins vv. 20–23 (see “Tentmaking,” 558–61). Hock understands the phrase “I enslaved myself to all” to mean “by entering the workshop and plying a slavish trade he had made himself available to all people, rich and poor, more in any case than had he accepted support and stayed in a household. The personal loss of status in the eyes of others was worth the gain in converts” (560). In this view vv. 20–22 function as additional illustrations of the length to which Paul was willing to go for the sake of the gospel. This is an attractive option; however, it is dependent on understanding the slavery metaphor as referring to his tentmaking, which attitude is completely lacking in the other passages about working with his own hands, esp. those in which he is encouraging other believers to follow his example (e.g., 2 Thess. 3:6–10). Nor does Hock deal adequately with the still closer structural and linguistic ties the verse has with vv. 20–22.

This is omitted in the NIV, as in most contemporary English translations (NRSV, ESV, NASB, JB excepted)—and for good reason. The almost universal understanding of the participle ὤν as having a concessive relationship to the main verb (“Though I am free from all, I made myself a slave to all”) makes the γάρ awkward. The γάρ (either as explanatory or inferential, the latter preferred by BDAG 3) implies that the participle must be taken more closely with v. 18, in which case it probably sustains a causal or more strictly circumstantial relationship to the main verb. Thus Paul has argued: “What pay can one like myself, who did not choose this position as God’s household manager, expect? Only this: that I can make the gospel ‘free of charge’ to all so that I not misuse my rights in the gospel. For being thereby free from all people [in not accepting ‘pay’], I can more freely become everyone’s ‘slave,’ so that I might ‘gain’ the more.”

Gk. ἐκ πάντων (one would ordinarily expect ἀπό for this ablative idea; cf. Rom. 7:3). For this reason some (e.g., Godet, 35) argue that πάντων is neuter (= “free from all things”). Since the context seems to demand otherwise, most likely Paul intended by this very clipped phrase something very close to the NIV’s somewhat free rendering; cf. NEB, “own no master”; NAB, “free in regard to all.” It is hard to justify the REB’s “though I was free from all men,” and even more difficult to determine how the ESV translators came up with “free from all”—although it is apparently finally clarified in v. 22 (“all people”).

Thus, despite some significant linguistic affinities, “freedom” here means something considerably different than in Gal. 5:13, where “freedom from the law” is in view. For similar expressions of “freedom” as financial independence, see Xenophon, apol. 16 (of Socrates): “Who of men is more free [ἀπελευθερία] than I, who accepts neither gifts nor payment [μισθός] from anyone?”; cf. mem. 1.2.5–7; Musonius Rufus, fr. 11. See also Lucian’s satire, “On Salaried Posts in Great Houses,” which begins by referring to salaried posts (i.e., living by patronage) as “that sort of slavery.”

Gk. ἐδούλωσα; the aorist is particularly significant. Paul is not here speaking in generalities about his modus operandi; rather, he is defending past actions. He is known to have conducted himself differently in differing social settings; his way of speaking about those actions is that he made himself a slave to everyone in order to win them to Christ.

See esp. Luke 22:24–27. Daube (Rabbinic Judaism, 336–51) makes a considerable point that there are parallels in attitude among the Hillelites. Although one would not question that Paul’s own liberal understanding of Judaism had been deeply influenced by his Hillelite teacher Gamaliel, on this issue Paul has surely been more deeply influenced by the One whom he insists he imitates. As Barrett, 211, rightly points out, “where [the Hillelites] were willing to make the law no more offensive and burdensome than necessary, Paul was prepared to abandon it altogether.”

Otherwise Hock () who thinks it points backward and refers to Paul’s tentmaking as a slavish trade.

Gk. κερδαίνω, a verb that ordinarily means “to gain, make profit, or gain advantage.” Daube has demonstrated that its Hebraic counterpart had already been taken over into Judaism as missionary language (Rabbinic Judaism, 352–61); cf. 1 Pet. 3:1. Nonetheless, since Paul would ordinarily use “save” for this purpose (cf. v. 22b), he has probably chosen it in keeping with the metaphor, as a play on the “pay” motif. By “gaining” people through his servanthood he brings all the more “profit” to the gospel itself.

Gk. τοὺς πλείονας (lit. “the many”), here meaning not the majority (as in 10:5), but “more than I should have gained by another policy—the greater number that this policy brings in” (Parry, 142).

Cf. G. Bornkamm, “The Missionary Stance of Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 and in Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nashville, 1966), 194–207. Otherwise Willis (“Apologia,” 37), who thinks Paul is referring throughout to his relationships among Christians. But that is because of his strong stance against chap. 9’s being a defense.

The sentence begins with a καί that is probably epexegetic (so R-P, 191).

See ; cf. Weiss, 243–44, and Bornkamm, “Stance,” 194–95.

The problem in Corinth, it must be kept in mind, did not come from some “weak” who felt abused or, as in Rom. 14, were judging others. Rather, it came from those insisting on “freedom,” who wanted to “build up” the weak. See on 8:9–10.

This seems to be sure evidence that Paul never considered himself released from a mission to the Jews, as W. Schmithals has argued on the basis of Gal. 2:9 (see Paul and James [ET, London, 1965]).

This is the only occurrence of the article with Ἰουδαῖοι in Paul’s letters. BDF 262(1) suggest it particularizes: “those with whom I had to deal on each occasion.”

Like the verb “made myself a slave” in v. 19, this aorist must not be overlooked. The present would be more fitting if Paul were merely using “a well-crafted piece of rhetorical style” in order to set forth his principles of self-denial for the sake of others (Willis, “Apologia,” 37–38).

It is surely the wrong solution to suggest that Paul was not a Jew because no Jew could act so(!), as G. Ory, “Quelle était l’origine de Paul?” Cahiers du Cercle Ernest-Renan 18 (1971), 11–19; see the helpful discussion by J. D. G. Dunn, “Who Did Paul Think He Was? A Study of Jewish-Christian Identity,” NTS 45 (1999), 174–93.

Cf. Conzelmann, 160: “He does not have to deliver the Jews from their practice of the Law, but from their ‘confidence’ in the Law as a way of salvation.”

NT scholarship does not seem to be at its best when the historicity of this event is denied (on the basis of Gal. 2:1–2, where an entirely different context is in view), since it fits so perfectly with this explicit statement of his missionary policy. Here Bornkamm’s otherwise helpful article (“Stance”) is esp. weak.

In any case, every attempt to see this passage as related to the content of his preaching seems misguided from the outset. We are here dealing with behavior, not with theology as such. Thus it is not a question of his accommodating the message for the sake of the audience. He may well have done that, but this passage is no evidence for it.

This seems more probable than the more strictly sociological tensions between the rich and poor envisioned by Theissen, 121–43.

Note in particular that when in the next item he turns to speak of his conduct among Gentiles, he omits reference to “Gentiles” or “non-Jews” altogether in favor of one that designates them in terms of their (non-)relationship to the law. This is the answer to Conzelmann’s unanswered rhetorical question, “Why does Paul not say, ‘To the Greeks’?”

Ellison (“Paul,” 196) rightly cautions that one not too quickly assume that Paul intends only Jews here, since it is a second category—even if in parallel to the first—and may intend to include Gentile god-fearers and proselytes as well. This may well be so, but primarily the category stands in parallel to the first, with emphasis now on the law.

On the textual question see .

Gk. μὴ ὢν αὐτός; in contrast to v. 19 both the position and context demand that this be concessive.

Gk. ἄνομος. Ordinarily this word means “lawless” (cf. 2 Thess. 2:8), but the fact that it stands in perfect balance with the preceding group as its opposite, not to mention that Paul speaks of himself as ὡς ἄνομος, means that he is not reflecting on their behavior but on their status. The Jews are “under the law”; the Gentiles are “without the law,” the Jewish law obviously being intended. Cf. his use of the adv. ἀνόμως in Rom. 2:12.

On genitives after a negative adjective, see Moulton, Grammar, 235–36. However, Moulton understands ἄνομος also to mean “without the law” here, and therefore θεοῦ as a subjective genitive. As with Moule, 42, this emphasizes the genitive in relation to νόμος. It seems more likely that Paul is playing on words and that the genitive at least in this first instance is objective. Cf. Barrett, 212–13, who translates, “legal obligation to God.” C. H. Dodd, interestingly enough, argues for the wordplay here, but then goes on to nullify that understanding by making θεοῦ refer to God’s law in the sense of obedience to requirements (see “ἔννομος Χριστοῦ,” in Studia Paulina in Honorem Johannis de Zwaan Septuagenarii (ed. J. N. Sevenster and W. C. van Unnik; Haarlem, 1953), 96–110, cited here from More New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids, 1968), 134–48.

Although quite beyond Paul’s own point, one should perhaps note the esp. high Christology assumed by this phrase, which is unfortunately all too easily overlooked in most discussions of this passage (cf. Pauline Christology, 141). As noted there, “this off-the-cuff disclaimer” assumes that “conforming to Christ’s character and behavior is now the way of being ‘under God’s law.’ ”

Dodd, “ἔννομος Χριστοῦ,” would understand this phrase to refer to “a code of precepts to which a Christian man is obliged to conform,” somewhat analogous to the Torah for Jews (138–46). As Conzelmann (161 n. 27) points out, however, that seems to be at variance with Paul’s use of νόμος.

Dodd (“ἔννομος Χριστοῦ,” 137) sees it as a word to imaginary Jewish interlocutors, but that seems to remove the paragraph from its historical context.

Since it is usually assumed that the “weak” here are fully identical with the “weak” of 8:7–13, the repetition of the clause “to win the weak” has generated considerable discussion (see esp. Barrett, 215). Willis (“Apologia”) began with this item as his way of arguing both for the nonapologetic character of the paragraph and that κερδαίνω throughout means “keep” rather than “win” (see ). Even if the “weak” were identical with those of chap. 8, most likely the repetition is stylistic.

On the textual question see .

Cf. Conzelmann, 161 n. 28, who also makes this observation.

Other alternatives have been offered. Dodd, “ἔννομος Χριστοῦ,” suggests “non-Christians, presumably of Jewish origin,” who are “morbidly scrupulous” (134); D. A. Black, “A Note on ‘the Weak’ in 1 Corinthians 9,22,” Bib 64 (1983), 240–42, moves in the direction suggested here, but spiritualizes the term too much and thereby misses its sociological implications.

Gk. γέγονα, the perfect instead of the previous aorists in vv. 20a and 22a.

Gk. πάντως (see on v. 10). The NIV does well in bringing out the force of the wordplay in πᾶσιν, πάντα, and πάντως.

On the difficulty in squaring this with his dressing down of Peter in Gal. 2:11–14, see P. Richardson, “Pauline Inconsistency: I Corinthians 9:19–23 and Galatians 2:11–14,” NTS 26 (1979/80), 347–62. Richardson’s solution, that Paul saw our passage primarily as an apostolic function, does not seem adequate. The difference in the Antioch situation is that it has to do with dividing a church in the Gentile mission into Jewish and Gentile factions based on food laws. Precisely because the gospel transcends such, Paul will have none of that in the church.

The sentence is joined to what has preceded by a consecutive δέ (“now then”). Godet, 41, thinks this sentence begins a new paragraph; but that seems unlikely. The πάντα, the mention of the gospel as his primary concern, and the concluding ἵνα-clause all indicate that it belongs with what has preceded as the final summation.

Otherwise R-P, 193, who regard διά here as meaning “because of” in the sense of its “being so precious to himself.” No doubt it was precious to him, but that is more sentimental that contextual.

So Schütz, Paul, 51–52; cf. Parry, 143, who suggests, “that I may have others to share the Gospel with me.”

Cf. Rom. 11:17; Phil. 1:7.

For a discussion of accommodation in Paul see P. Richardson and P. W. Gooch, “Accommodation Ethics,” TynB 19 (1978), 89–142.

“Stance,” 196.

This at least seems to be the primary point of the present paragraph.

For the archaeology and significance of the nearby Isthmian Games (about 14 kilometers from Corinth), see O. Broneer, “The Apostle Paul and the Isthmian Games,” BA 25 (1962), 2–31; cf. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 14–17. See also Dio Chrysostom’s imaginary accounts in or. 8.6–14 and 9.10–22 of Diogenes’ visits to the Games, which undoubtedly reflect his own times (second half of 1st c. A.D.). Conzelmann, 162 n. 31, discounts any connection with these games; but that seems unrealistic, given their undoubted significance for Corinth itself.

These Games, held every two years under the patronage of Corinth and second only to the Olympics, were extravagant festivals of religion, athletics, and the arts, attracting thousands of competitors and visitors from all over the empire. Its sponsors and greater athletes were honored in Isthmia itself by monuments, statues, and inscriptions. Paul would have been in Corinth during the Games of A.D. 51 (in the spring). Since there were no permanent facilities for visitors until the second century A.D., they had to stay in tents. Broneer (5, 20) conjectures that Paul would have had ample opportunity to ply his trade and share the gospel with the crowds visiting the Games of that year.

Dio (or. 8.12) mentions the six basic athletic events that made up the Games: racing, wrestling, jumping, boxing, hurling the javelin, and throwing the discus. On this matter see H. A. Harris, Greek Athletes and Athletics (3rd ed., Westport, Conn., 1979).

On this question, as well as for the paragraph in hand, see Pfitzner, Agon Motif, 23–72 and 82–98.

He first applies the metaphors in the second person plural as an imperative; then he shifts to the first plural in v. 25b, and finally to the first singular in vv. 26–27. They are thus first a word to the Corinthians; at the same time, however, they serve to conclude the personal ἀπολογία of chap. 9.

The shift to the first plural most likely now includes the Corinthians and Paul, thus preparing the way for the first person singulars that follow.

The problem with metaphor is that although it is a marvelous tool of communication, inherent within it is also the possibility of independent application. Fairness in exegesis demands that one “hear” the author’s own intent, and neither press it in directions he does not take it, nor allegorize it—the worst of all evils in this case. This paragraph in particular has been one in which Paul’s own intent has often been circumvented. Cf. Pfitzner, 86.

As one might well expect, Paul’s use of this metaphor has elicited considerable scholarly discussion. Among others see (in chronological order): R. Garrison, “Paul’s Use of the Athlete Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 9,” SR 22 (1993), 209–17; A. Papathomas, “Das agonistische Motiv 1 Cor 9.24ff. im Spiegel zeitgenössischer dokumentarischer Quellen,” NTS 43 (1997), 223–42; R. Metzner, “Paulus und der Wettkampf. Die Rolle des Sports in Leben und Verkundigung des Apostels (1 Kor 9.24–7; Phil 3.12–16),” NTS 46 (2000), 565–83; J. L. Sumney, “The Place of 1 Corinthians 9:24–27 in Paul’s Argument,” JBL 119 (2000), 329–33; S. Joubert, “1 Corinthians 9:24–27: An Agonistic Competition?” Neotestamentica 35 (2001), 57–68.

Otherwise Pfitzner, Agon Motif, 87–90, who sees the point more strictly in the motif of self-control, the basic reason for it being Paul’s “self-apology.” He altogether rejects the idea that it is parenesis (reading the imperative in v. 24b as an indicative; see ), but does so mostly in reaction to those who see the parenesis in terms of bland generalities about Christian living (see esp. 97–98). Such interpretations are rightly to be rejected. Paul’s concern is much more specific and aims directly at the concern of 10:1–22 (Pfitzner does himself a disservice to reject so totally the close ties to what follows).

Cf O. Schwankl, “ ‘Lauft so, dass ihr gewinnt.’ Zur Wettkampfmetaphorik in 1 Kor 9,” BibZeit 41 (1997), 174–91 (“reminder and warning”).

Note the explanatory γάρ that joins 10:1–5 to 9:27. This relationship is emphasized in Senft, 125, who makes 9:24–10:22 a distinct section entitled “Warning against Idolatry.”

See esp. K. I. Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment according to Deeds (SNTSMS 105; Cambridge, 1999).

So also T. Deidun, “Linford Christi?” Month 29 (1996), 340–44.

The NIV has translated ἐν σταδίῳ as “in a race”; it could also mean “at the stadium” (the anarthrous σταδίῳ is similar to our “at home”; cf. ἐν μακέλλῳ in 10:25). The στάδιον was first of all a measure of distance (about 185 meters); it was naturally transferred to the arena itself, which measured the length of a στάδιον, the basic distance in the races.

Gk. βραβεῖον; used specifically for the “prize” in a contest. Cf. the metaphorical usage in Phil. 3:14 and Mart. Pol. 17:1.

This is Pfitzner’s happy choice of terms (87).

This is a common view, found, e.g., in R-P, 193; Lenski, 383; Grosheide, 215; and even Barrett, 217. Lenski, 383, among others, quite misses the preparatory nature of this first image to the whole paragraph by suggesting that in v. 25 “a further and somewhat different point is added.” Even further afield is A. Ehrhardt’s idealized suggestion, on the basis of an alleged similarity in an Orphic fragment, that “St. Paul was here referring to a popular conception of man’s religious task as a struggle before the face of the Godhead, who had Himself arranged the contest before him”! See “An Unknown Orphic Writing in the Demosthenes Scholia and St. Paul,” ZNW 48 (1957), 101–10 (quotation from 109).

Conzelmann, 162, who finally allows that this is only an auxiliary notion, is nonetheless much too prosaic even to suggest “that the moral Paul derives from it—namely that only one wins the prize—appears out of place.” Of course it does, since that is to miss Paul’s imagery altogether.

Gk. τρέχετε, an imperative, not an indicative as Pfitzner (Agon Motif, 88–89) argues. That is simply not a natural reading of the text, and Pfitzner’s arguments in its favor are less than compelling. His motivation is given away in the sentence, “If τρέχετε is understood as an imperative . . . the connection between the picture of the Agon and the theme of ‘enkrateia’ . . . would seem to be impaired” (88). But that is not so (as Conzelmann, 162 n. 35, has also pointed out). Unfortunately, rejecting this imperative also causes Pfitzner to miss the central concern of the paragraph, which is to exhort the Corinthians to the kind of self-control that their demand for exousia lacks.

This οὕτως points forward to the ἵνα-clause, making that clause epexegetic: “So run that you may obtain.” At the same time, of course, it refers back to the preceding image.

There has been considerable discussion surrounding this metaphor regarding the relative worthlessness of the prize itself (usually a wreath of perishables (laurel, celery, pine); see the “Additional Note” in Garland (445). But all of this is a byway discussion, since it is not the value of the material that interests Paul, but the significance of what it represents.

Paul’s δέ here is consecutive: “Now everyone who etc.,” not adversative, as in the NEB (cf. R-P, 194; Pfitzner, Agon Motif, 89; Conzelmann, 159), which in context makes very little sense. It is omitted altogether in most English versions, including the otherwise ultraconservative ESV.

Gk. πᾶς ὁ ἀγωνιζόμενος; the verb is a technical one for “engaging in a contest,” esp. an athletic contest. It came to be used by the philosophers as a metaphor for “the heroic struggle which the pious has to go through in this world” (E. Stauffer, TDNT 1:135). It is this metaphorical usage that in turn has caused so many to see Paul as here comparing the Christian life to that same “heroic struggle,” and thus (wrongly) to interpret the passage as a piece of general parenesis (see ).

Gk. ἐγκρατεύω; see on 7:5 and 9. For Paul’s use see Hill, “Enkrateia.” Its basic meaning is to “exercise mastery over oneself”; cf. the discussion by R. Garrison (“Paul’s Use of the Athlete Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 9,” SR 22 [1993], 200–217).

The πάντα here at least echoes the πάντα of v. 23, if it does not refer to it directly (Pfitzner, Agon Motif, 87–88, makes this the “catchword” of chap. 9). As the athlete exercises self-control in “all things” for the sake of the victor’s wreath, so Paul does “all things” for the sake of the gospel. By implication they must also do “all things” in order to obtain the prize.

See Plato, leg. 840a. This was at least true for the Olympiad; there is no reason to think otherwise at Isthmia. For athletic training in general, see Harris, Athletes, 170–78.

Gk. στέφανος; cf. 2 Tim. 4:8. The Isthmian Games awarded a στέφανος of pine (at least in the 2nd c. A.D.) or withered celery, probably in use at the time of Paul (see Broneer, “The Isthmian Victory Crown,” AJA 66 [1962], 259–63); cf. his “Apostle Paul,” 16–17, where he writes: “It is tempting to see in [Paul’s] reference to the perishable wreath . . . a reference to the crown of celery which, when bestowed at the Isthmian Games, was already withered.”

The runner, of course, had no thought for the composition of the “crown.” As with modern athletes, victory meant fame, prestige, and sometimes fortune. The “crown” was the symbol of victory; if it faded, the fame that followed was often more enduring. But even that means nothing in light of the believer’s crown.

With this “we” Paul begins to bring exhortation (v. 24b) and example (vv. 26–27) together.

The contrast is between φθαρτός and ἄφθαρτος, what is perishable and what is imperishable (cf. 15:53–54).

Gk. τοίνυν; only here in Paul (elsewhere in the NT only in Luke 20:25; Heb. 13:13; Jas. 2:24).

Gk. ἀδήλως; only here in the NT (cf. the adjective in 14:8).

The translation is from BDAG; cf. NAB, “like a man who loses sight of the finish line.” He does not mean “not sure of the goal.”

Both ideas can be found in the early Fathers (see W. Foerster, TDNT 1:166 n. 8). Philo combines them in cher. 81. This may be Paul’s point as well; in the ring he doesn’t shadow-box. Cf. the discussion in K. L. Schmidt, TDNT 6:915–17, and Pfitzner, Agon Motif, 90–91. For a possible allusion to the Sophists, see Witherington (214 n. 37).

This is assumed by most interpreters and is made explicit in the NAB (“as if I were shadowboxing”).

It thus serves also to illustrate v. 23: He does all things for the sake of the gospel so that he, with them, might share in its blessings.

Gk. ἀλλά, in an οὐ/ἀλλά contrast.

Gk. ὑπωπιάζω, lit. “to strike under the eye,” hence “to give a black eye to.” The Rheims-Douay translation “I chastise my body,” favored by D. R. Fotheringham (“I Buffet My Body,” ExpT 34 [1922/23], 140), completely circumvents the metaphor in favor of a prior theological position (see the next note).

Any number of quite un-Pauline ascetic practices have been defended on the basis of a crassly literal understanding of this text, for a defense of which see Fotheringham (preceding note). But such an interpretation fails on two counts: it is totally noncontextual (nowhere in the entire passage is there any concern over the treatment of one’s body); it is out of character with Paul’s theology, who saw the body as mortal yet as destined for resurrection. Sin does not lie in the body; hence it is not to be beaten into submission.

Gundry, 36–37, thinks otherwise. The problem lies with the use of metaphor, both here and in Rom. 12:1. The reason for σώματα in that passage is the metaphor of sacrifice pure and simple. One does not put their “soul” or “oneself” on the sacrificial altar, but the carcass (σῶμα) of the animal. Hence σῶμα is the only natural word, but it is a metaphor for oneself—not an anthropologically inclusive word, as Bultmann and Robinson have argued (see ). The same is true here; Paul is simply keeping the metaphor going. That is not to deny that the body per se is also in view; it is to deny that he is isolating his physical body as the problem area of his life, or the instrument of sin, which needs to be subdued or else he will fail to obtain the prize.

Cf. B. B. Warfield, “Paul’s Buffeting of His Body,” ExpT 31 (1919/20), 520–21; Pfitzner, Agon Motif, 92–93. Conzelmann’s objection to this view (163 n. 41) misses the point. Paul is indeed still laying emphasis on his own actions, which is exactly how he views his apostolic hardships. They “come with the territory,” as it were, but he gives himself totally to such a ministry.

A κήρυξ (“herald”) summoned the contestants and announced the rules of the contest. See, e.g., Godet, 48; Findlay, 857; R-P, 197.

So Field, Notes, 174–75; cf. Barrett, 218; Conzelmann, 163; and the discussion in Pfitzner, Agon Motif, 94–96.

Otherwise Pfitzner, Agon Motif, 96, who rejects any allusion to the contests, on two grounds: that the foregoing use of “preaching” is not metaphorical, and that Paul often uses δόκιμος/ἀδόκιμος (“approved/disapproved”) in a theological way. But neither of these is compelling. It is hard to imagine the Corinthians, in light of the entire paragraph, not hearing this as metaphor; on the other hand, even as metaphor it carries the full weight of Paul’s theological concerns expressed elsewhere.

Gk. ἀδόκιμος, lit. “unqualified” because one has not passed the test (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5–7; 2 Tim. 3:8; Tit. 1:16).

So also the REB.

Cf., e.g., the Geneva Bible, the translation of the Scottish Calvinists in Switzerland: “lest I my self shulde be reproved”!

Failure to recognize this reality has led the majority of earlier interpreters to have considerable difficulty with this section (either vv. 1–13 or 14–22, or both) in its present context. Some opted for theories of partition; others saw it as directed to a different group (the weak) from 8:1–13, a most improbable suggestion (on both of these see Hurd, 118–19). The majority saw vv. 1–13 as still addressing the question of marketplace food, being a kind of general warning against “complacency.” This in turn makes vv. 14–22 a digression—despite the strong διόπερ that joins the two sections (e.g., Conzelmann, 165, 170, who in particular had difficulty with the contextual questions in the entire section that comprises chaps. 8–10). L. Cope thus argued that this entire passage is suspect (“First Corinthians 8–10: Continuity or Contradiction?” ATRsuppl. 11 [1990], 114–123). For a discussion of this passage (10:1–22) on the basis of a rhetorical analysis, see J. Smit, “ ‘Do Not Be Idolators’: Paul’s Rhetoric in First Corinthians 10:1–22,” NovT 39 (1997), 40–53; cf. the earlier analysis by G. D. Collier, “ ‘That We Might Not Crave Evil’: The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians 10.1–13,” JSNT 55 (1994), 55–75. While these latter have considerable interest to the scholar, in neither case do they help the later reader to understand what difference such an analysis makes in terms of what Paul is actually saying to the Corinthians, not to mention help the Corinthians in the first place.

The MS evidence is divided between the aorist passive ἐβαπτίσθησαν ( A C D G Ψ 33 81 104 365 630 2464 2495 al latt Basil Didymus Cyril) and the aorist middle ἐβαπτίσαντο (P^46c B K P 614 1739 1881 Maj Origen). Despite the majority of the UBS committee (see Metzger, 493), the middle is more likely the original (favored by Metzger and Wikgren on the committee), since it is nearly impossible to explain how a scribe would have gone from the passive to a middle, while the opposite change would have been most natural (cf. Zuntz, 234). Hence, “they were all baptizing themselves into Moses.”

P⁴⁶ and A, plus a few others in each case, omit αὐτό here and in v. 4. Most likely the omission is the result of homoeoteleuton (TOAYTO).

A few isolated cursives (81 257 1610) omit ὁ θεός; Zuntz, 232, argues for this as the original on the grounds that it is also the reading of Marcion and Clement. But this patristic evidence is tenuous at best. Textual variation needs a pedigree to be accepted as original, and this one has none at all.

See esp. Ps. 78; Deut. 32:1–43; or Ezra’s speech in Neh 9:5–37 (cf. Acts 7:1–53).

Some have argued that the material in vv. 1–11 had prior existence as a Jewish or Christian midrash (see, e.g., Conzelmann, 165; W. A. Meeks, “ ‘And Rose Up to Play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22,” JSNT 16 [1982], 64–78). But the material has been so thoroughly adapted by Paul, as Meeks admits, that the question of its origin is nearly irrelevant (cf. on chap. 13). One is nonetheless wont to ask rhetorically, Why, given its perfect fit in this context with no clear “seams” and given Paul’s own rabbinic background and acknowledged genius, could he not have composed such a Christian “midrash” ad hoc? Cf. .

Roetzel, “Judgment Form,” considers 10:1–14 to be another example (along with 3:16–17; 5:1–13) of the OT prophetic judgment form, which Paul has adapted.

Most earlier commentators either ignored this γάρ (e.g., Conzelmann) or minimized it as having a “loose” connection with what precedes (e.g., Barrett, 220). But in so doing they failed to take seriously either the argument itself or Paul’s usage throughout this letter. This oversight has now been corrected in some of the more recent commentaries in English (Garland, C-R, Thiselton; but not Collins). Here is a clear case where the “numbers” (chapter/verse) simply get in the way of a plain reading of the text.

Unfortunately, theological “logic” of a later time often tends to supersede the plain reading of this text. Everything about the passage (the language itself, the nature of the warning, the intensity of the argument) makes it clear that Paul considers these believers to be in real danger if they persist in their present idolatry; he simply didn’t have to wrestle with the finely tuned arguments that have often divided Calvinists and Arminians on these matters!

See also 1 Thess. 4:13; 2 Cor. 1:8; Rom. 1:13; 11:25. This is one of three such formulas. Earlier Paul had repeatedly used the diatribe formula “Do you not know that?” (see on 3:16); later he will say “I make known to you” (15:1), which in that case also means “I remind you.” These nuances are thus obliterated in the ESV’s “I want you to know,” another of those rare moments (cf. 6:2) where the translators have abandoned their ordinary policy of more rigid literalism.

Cf. Ellis, 156 n. 36, who sees the entire passage (vv. 1–13) as a modified form of midrash (“commentary on the biblical text”); cf., inter alios, Weiss, 250; Davies, Paul, 105; Meeks, “Rose Up,” 64–66; C. Perrot, “Les examples du désert (1 Co. 10.6–11),” NTS 29 (1983), 437–52. Cf. .

On this question see Ellis, Use, 126–35. Cf. esp. L. Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (ET, Grand Rapids, 1982), whose original German edition (1939) set off the modern scholarly debate. For this debate and a defense of the typological use of the OT in the New, see R. M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of hermeneutical τύπος structures (AUSSDS 2; Berrien Springs, Mich., 1981).

In contrast to Davidson, who understood “type” in a more cause-and-effect way, by “type” I mean that after the second fact one is able to see a correspondence between earlier biblical events and the present situation. Sometimes these are viewed as nearly “prophetic”; i.e., the earlier event makes the second one inevitable. It is doubtful whether Paul so understood them. He sees the one as divinely given “instruction.” They “prefigure” in this sense, but they scarcely happened so as to demand further “fulfillment.”

It should be noted that Paul was not the first in Israel’s history so to understand the past in light of the present. Isa. 43:19–21 offers a prophetic example of eschatological deliverance from present bondage in terms of Exodus imagery. The allegorical “exegesis” of Qumran and of Philo offer contemporary examples of a different type.

The original NIV read “forefathers” here; cf. Rom. 4:1, where Paul does use the Greek word for forefathers.

In the sense that Christ, in whom they believe and to whom everything points, was already present in those OT events (v. 4).

Such an understanding is thoroughgoing in Paul. See esp. Rom. 2:26–29; 11:17–24; Gal. 3:6–9, 29; 6:15–16; Phil. 3:3; etc. Contemporary Gentile believers, however, need to read and express this with considerable care, since nearly twenty centuries later a great deal of water has gone under the bridge, and the later Jewish community can hear this only with great antipathy.

The πάντες is repeated five times in vv. 1–4—“All were under the cloud; all passed through the sea; all were baptized; all ate; all drank”—most likely to emphasize the enormity of their corporate sin and consequent failure to gain the prize. One should note, however, that the four examples in vv. 7–10 all say “some of them.” Does this reflect the Corinthian situation, where some of them (see on 4:18) are leading, or trying to lead, the whole church into these paths?

Those who would use this “all” as an analogy for including infants in Christian baptism (e.g., Jeremias, Origins, 32) are esp. misguided in this instance, since they would have to argue from vv. 3 and 4 that infants also ate the Eucharist (cf. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 183–84). Such arguments stem from concerns and differences of a much later time and have very little to do with Paul and the Corinthians.

See . Although Zuntz (loc. cit.) probably makes a little too much of it, the force of the middle might imply their willing cooperation in the divine event. For the translation “were all baptized,” see Turner, Syntax, 57, who calls it an “intransitive active.”

Some have argued that the rabbis had already made this equation of Israel’s crossing the Red Sea with proselyte baptism. See Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 118; for further bibliography, see A. J. Bandstra, “Interpretation in 1 Corinthians 10:1–11,” CTJ 6 (1971), 6 n. 3. The point is moot.

All attempts to suggest that Paul saw Israel’s experience of the Red Sea, or their eating manna and drinking water from the rock, as something sacramental are misguided and futile. Paul is not concerned with Israel’s experience, but with the analogies they provide. See the refutation of this view by Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 181–83.

The various suggestions that by this “baptism” Israel came into some kind of relation with Moses, or devoted themselves in loyalty to him, quite miss the point. See, e.g., Bandstra, “Interpretation,” 7, and Davidson, Typology, 215, who (typically) intimates that all available scholarly suggestions were implicit in Paul. But Paul is not at all concerned about Israel’s relationship to Moses, but about the Corinthians’ to Christ, and it is scarcely possible that Paul would have viewed Moses as in any way comparable to Christ—analogous in a sense, but comparable never. Cf. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 185; Dunn, Baptism, 125–26.

Although in the actual Red Sea narrative the cloud is either before or behind them. But see Ps. 105:39, where the cloud is already seen as a “covering”; this appears to lie behind the usage in Wis. 19:7, where earlier (in 10:17) personified Wisdom is the cloud that gave them “shelter.”

Although these ἐν’s could be interpreted as instrumental, the use of ἐν with βαπτίζω throughout the NT is locative, expressing the element into which one is baptized (see on 12:13). Otherwise, Bandstra (“Interpretation,” 9), who, incorrectly it would seem, uses Acts 11:16 as an analogy.

This suggestion goes as far back as Origen; it has been variously adopted by exegetes (e.g., Conzelmann, 166; Dunn, Baptism, 127). Beasley-Murray (Baptism, 183) considers such a comparison “gratuitous.” Less likely still are the suggestions by A. T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (London, 1965), 11–16, that the cloud is a reference to the preexistent Christ, and by M. G. Kline, By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism (Grand Rapids, 1968), 67–70 (followed by Bandstra, “Interpretation,” 8–9), that the cloud and sea refer to “the two elemental ordeal powers,” fire and water. Both views demand severe jumps in the symbolism (e.g., in Hanson, “cloud” = angel of the Lord = Christ; in Kline “baptism” = judgment ordeal; “cloud” = fire). Kline and Bandstra argue that their view is supported by the use of the verb βαπτίζω here “in its secondary, technical sense,” since “none of the non-technical meanings, such as ‘to immerse’ or ‘to dip,’ really fit” (Bandstra, 8). To the contrary, βαπτίζω has its primary technical sense of Christian initiation here, which has simply been used by transfer to refer to Israel’s crossing of the sea.

Cf. Neh. 9:11–12; Ps. 78:13–14; 105:38–39.

At the other end of the spectrum is Davidson, Typology, 218–21, who argues that “it does not seem possible to limit Paul’s intention to a single nuance of meaning,” and therefore would view it as such rich symbolism as to encompass several possibilities, including Origen’s and Kline’s ( above). This seems to be a case of “having one’s cake and eating it too.” In parenesis such as this, Paul is simply trying to establish his point, that Israel had its own form of baptism. To overload the symbols with a vast array of meanings, some of which are in actual conflict, seems to go far beyond the author’s intent. Cf. .

It should be noted that these are not the only references to these events in the OT, but they are the primary historical ones; and in Exod. 16–17 the miraculous feeding and drinking immediately follow one another. Although the two events are mentioned separately in subsequent traditions (e.g., Deut. 8:3, where the bread is already being interpreted “spiritually”), more often they appear together (e.g., Deut. 8:15–16; Neh. 9:15, 20; Ps. 78:15–31; 105:40). Cf. John’s gospel, where the eschatological “bread from heaven” is the theme of chap. 6, followed by the eschatological water in 7:37–39.

Goppelt (TDNT 6:146), following Dibelius, Weiss, and Käsemann, argues on the basis of the Corinthian fondness for this word and the usage in Did. 10:3 that this was already a term current in Corinth for the eucharistic elements. If so, it lies beyond certain demonstration. For example, the usage in the Didache could be dependent on this passage rather than reflecting widespread common usage in the early church. One simply cannot know.

Contra Dunn, Baptism, 125, whose antisacramental stance causes him to reject any analogical/typological reference to the Eucharist here. Not only does the language nearly demand a eucharistic typology, but in the prohibition of the next paragraph (vv. 14–22) Paul begins with his understanding of the Eucharist as the reason why they cannot go to the pagan meals.

Calvin, 204, followed by Edwards, 245, and Hanson, Jesus Christ, 19, argues that “same” here means “the same which we Christians eat.” But that is quite beyond Paul’s own concern, which is to emphasize that all Israel enjoyed the same privileges, including those whose bodies were scattered about the desert; cf. Héring, 86; Barrett, 221–22. Cf. v. 17; all eat the one bread. The “all” is a Pauline emphasis apparently designed as a warning to the Corinthians. Not a single living Israelite was excluded from these experiences, yet the vast majority of them never reached the final goal. Analogies are just that, and must not be pressed in ways that one would with direct statements.

For a full discussion and critique of the various options, see Willis, 130–42, and Davidson, Typology, 225–31, 245–47; cf. the brief discussion in God’s Empowering Presence, 142–44.

Cf. 15:44–46 for a related adjectival use; there the resurrected body is “spiritual” in nature, being both “heavenly” in origin and nonmaterial in substance. In the present case, “spiritual” does not mean “nonmaterial,” but it does seem to point to reality beyond the merely material or historical.

As, e.g., E. Käsemann, “The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” in Essays on New Testament Themes (ET, SBT 41; London, 1960), 108–35, who is characteristically bold: “βρῶμα and πόμα πνευματικόν undoubtedly mean ‘food and drink which convey πνεῦμα.’ ” In this view he is followed by Jewett, Terms, 38–39. But this is to place the emphasis on the sacraments in a way that Paul does not; his concern is with their idolatry, not their false sacramentalism.

At the same time it also seems to go beyond the evidence, and probably beyond Paul’s intent, to suggest, as Davidson (Typology, 246) does, that “the apostle seems to intimate that ancient Israel also partook of sacramental gifts which conveyed the Spirit” (cf. 247: “Both are sacraments, charged with πνεῦμα, and salvific”). In this case Davidson’s prior interest in typology, not simply as prefiguring but in some way as being devoir-être (“must needs be”), goes beyond Paul’s concerns in the text itself.

Gk. γάρ, giving the grounds for the previous statement.

Gk. ἔπινον; the imperfect here, in contrast to the preceding aorist, suggesting that they customarily drank from the rock.

The most complete expression of the legend is found in t. Suk. 3.11: “And so the well which was with the Israelites in the wilderness was a rock, the size of a large round vessel, surging and gurgling upward, as from the mouth of this little flask, rising with them up onto the mountains, and going down with them into the valleys. Wherever the Israelites would encamp, it made camp with them, on a high place, opposite the Tent of Meeting. The princes of Israel come and surround it with their staffs, and they sing a song concerning it: Spring up, O Well! Sing to it (Num. 21:17–18)” (Neusner, 220). Although this tosephta is not earlier than the fourth c. A.D. it reflects a tradition that goes much further back, being attested by Rabbi Jose ben Judah (end of 2nd c. A.D.) in b. Taan. 9a and by Ps.-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 11.14 (end of 1st c. A.D.). It is also mentioned or alluded to in other places: m. Abot 5.6 (cf. b. Pes. 54a), where the well, along with the manna, is said to have been one of the ten things God created on the eve of the sixth day; Midr.Num. 1:2 (which reflects the tosephta, with some additional details); Midr.Num. 19:26; Tg.Ps.-J. Num. 20:2; 22:15; b. Sabb. 35a.

For a discussion of the “legend,” its probable sources, and its possible influence on Paul, see esp. Ellis, Use, 66–70 (cf. “A Note on First Corinthians 10:4,” JBL 76 [1957], 53–56). Ellis is disinclined to see a direct relationship between the “legend” as it appears in the later rabbinic materials and Paul; rather, he postulates Paul’s having a closer relation to the tradition in the Targum, both of which he sees as borrowing from some prophetic uses of the idea of water from the rock. For a more recent discussion, including an analysis of other similar traditions in Judaism (ps.Philo’s Biblical Antiquities 10:7; 11:15; 20:8; t. Sukk. 3:11; Tg. Onq. Num 21:16–20), see P. E. Enns, “The ‘Moveable Well’ in 1 Cor 10:4: An Extrabiblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text,” BBR 6 (1996), 23–38; see also G. D. Collier, “ ‘That We Might Not Crave Evil’: The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians 10.1–13,” JSNT 55 (1994), 55–75.

The formula used to introduce this identification is similar to that used elsewhere by Paul when he is identifying or interpreting an element from a prior quotation or biblical allusion (see 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 4:25; Eph. 4:9). In each of these cases, however, the word being interpreted is given a contemporary application, signaled by the present tense of “to be” (e.g., 2 Cor. 3:17, where “the Lord” mentioned in the preceding OT text refers to “the Spirit”). But that is not the case here, where Paul says in the past tense, “now that rock was Christ.” Dunn (Baptism, 125) thus seems quite mistaken to suggest that the verb “is not significant” and that Paul “is not talking about Christ’s pre-existence here.” See now the more extensive refutation of Dunn in my Pauline Christology, 95–97.

See leg.all. 2.86: “For the flinty rock is the Wisdom of God, which He marked off highest and chiefest from His powers, and from which He satisfies the thirsty souls that love God” (Loeb, 1:279); cf. det.pot.ins. 115. Among those who make this bridge see Barrett, 222–23; Conzelmann, 167; Bandstra, “Interpretation,” 12–13. It needs to be noted that only the fact that both interpret the rock is in common; but Philo’s is pure allegory. Paul is not saying that Christ is now the rock, but that in the rock he was somehow himself actually present in Israel.

For a full rebuttal of this misguided understanding of Paul, which has no exegetical basis of any kind, see my Pauline Christology (Appendix A: “Christ and Personified Wisdom,” 595–630).

This suggestion is made the more plausible by the fact that the language “provoking the Lord to jealousy” and their “sacrificing to demons” in vv. 16–17 of the Song are reflected by Paul in vv. 21–22.

So Dunn, Baptism, 125; see . Conzelmann, 167 n. 26, rejects the similar notion presented by P. Neuenzeit, Das Herrenmahl (Munich, 1960), 52.

Gk. ἀλλά, the strong adversative.

An explanatory γάρ is left untranslated in the NIV.

Καταστρώννυμι, both in classical and koinē Greek, means “to spread out,” “scatter about.” Surely this is the picture intended here, rather than the much more tame “laid low” preferred by BDAG; Barrett, 223; and Conzelmann, 164.

The contemporary English translations reflect an understandable ambivalence between rendering Paul’s ἐρήμῳ as “wilderness” in keeping with the tradition based on the KJV (NIV, NRSV, ESV) or modernizing it to “desert” (REB, NAB).

Against both the published Greek text and the major English translations, Thiselton has chosen to view v. 6 as the conclusion of this paragraph, rather than the beginning of the next one.

A few witnesses conform the number to Num. 25:9 (24,000).

The original NIV had the secondary reading “Lord” here (supported by B C P 0150 33 104, plus 34 others and some Fathers, as is θεόν by A 81 pc). For the full argument in favor of Χριστόν see C. D. Osburn, “The Text of I Corinthians 10:9,” in New Testament Textual Criticism, Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee; Oxford, 1981), 201–12; cf. Metzger, 494; Zuntz, 126–27. See further .

As Metzger, 494, notes, “Influenced by ἐκπειράζωμεν in ver. 9, the reading γογγύζετε (A B C K P Ψ 81 104 614 1739 Byz Lect it⁶¹ vg syr^p,h cop^sa eth) was replaced in some witnesses ( D G^gr 33 it- cop^bo arm) by γογγύζωμεν.”

The majority of witnesses add πάντα; but the very fact that they do not do so in the same order (πάντα δὲ ταῦτα/ταῦτα δὲ πάντα) is evidence that it is a later insertion (see Metzger, 494; Zuntz, 166 n. 5). The πάντα is tentatively (but weakly) defended by Davidson, Typology, 266–67, but basically for prior exegetical reasons (he wants the ταῦτα to include all of vv. 1–10, not just 7–10).

The original text does not have this “you.” It was added later and became the MajT reading for the same reason the NIV has it in English—to make a more readable sentence.

Gk. ἐγενήθησαν (lit. “became” or “came to be”); the RSV was quite wrong in rendering this as “are” (cf. GNB), which was changed to “occurred” in the NRSV.

Gk. τύποι ἡμῶν (lit. “our examples” or “examples for us” [NAB, NRSV]). The exact nature of this genitive is not easy to determine, but it probably should not be left out (as in the NIV and ESV), even though something like it can easily be assumed from the context. The NEB had rendered this “symbolic” (changed to “our examples” in the REB). All of this serves to illustrate the difficulty of putting Paul’s word into an adequate English equivalent. At the very least, the one that precedes the other is now being used by the apostle to give scriptural (thus divine) attestation to the warnings that follow.

Probably on the basis of 9:24–27, where he has already referred to himself in an exemplary way so as to include himself along with them in the common “race” of the Christian life, Paul continues to use “we/us” in this way throughout the following argument, with the notable exceptions of vv. 7, 10, 12–14, 18–22. On this usage see .

Gk. ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶς (lit. “lusters after evil”). The personal noun ἐπιθυμητής occurs only here in the NT. Outside the biblical materials the word can have a positive sense (= a deep desire for something). But here and in its two occurrences in the LXX (Num. 11:34; Prov. 1:22) it is clearly pejorative, as the abstract noun ἐπιθυμία usually is in Paul as well (see Gal. 5:16, 24; Rom. 7:7–8; 13:14).

For reasons that are not at all clear (or whether they were even for the apostle), the first and fourth are second person plural imperatives (= “do not”), while the middle two are first plural (= “let us not”).

Gk. καθώς, which is a slightly stronger comparative than the simple ὡς (cf. BDAG 1); thus the REB “as they also did.”

These questions are borrowed from Findlay, 859. They serve to highlight the difficulty in understanding the force of the verb and the kind of genitive involved in ἡμῶν.

Cf. Bandstra, “Interpretation,” 15–17, whose language “hypothetical types” to describe this phenomenon, however, does not seem to be the happiest choice. Davidson, Typology, 250–86, in effect comes out at this same place, but his desire to see a “must-needs-be” relationship between the type and antitype has led him to some overstatements, as well as to an overemphasis on type over against parenesis that seems to move far beyond Paul’s own concern.

Nonetheless, as noted on v. 1, it is the genuinely typological character of Israel and its “sacraments,” which serve existentially to get the Corinthians into the “story,” as it were, that gives the warning its potency.

Since there are so many allusions to Numbers in what follows, it is possible that this language, “do not be lusters, as they lusted,” is a reflection of Num. 11:34 (LXX); but in fact Paul makes no point here of anything from the Numbers passage. Otherwise Perrot, “Les examples,” who thinks that this, rather than idolatry, is the basic sin being addressed.

See Conzelmann, 168; cf. Willis, 144–53, who vigorously contends for this. On the other side, see Perrot, “Les examples,” 444–49.

Many earlier commentators took the position that these items reflect the Corinthian situation, but in a more general way. That is, rather than seeing them all as related to the matter at hand, they are viewed as reflecting 1 Corinthians as a whole. See, e.g., R-P, 203–7; Grosheide, 223–25. Willis has rightly pointed out that this is fanciful at times.

A word about structure: Although probably intended as four examples of the “evil things” in v. 6, each clause is joined to v. 6 by a μηδέ (“neither”), as though they were the second through the fifth in a series of five. R-P are probably correct in seeing this usage as reflecting genus/species or class/instance (“another point in which the Greek idiom is rather illogical,” 203). The four sentences are generally parallel, following the structural form of v. 5. Each begins with an imperative, followed by “even as some of them.” The first and fourth are second plural imperatives; the second and third, hortatory subjunctives (first person plural imperatives), thus creating an AB-BA pattern. But that may be simply incidental to the fact that Paul, by the very nature of the argument, would exclude himself from the first and fourth items.

One is tempted to see significance to the present imperatives in these four verses (cf. Davidson, Typology, 256), as though Paul were intending to say, “Stop being idolaters” (cf. 4:5; 7:5). In light of the situation in Corinth that is indeed possible; on the other hand, Paul tends to use the present imperative with this idiom in parenetic series (see, e.g., Rom. 12:16).

In this instance an exact citation of the LXX.

Gk. παίζειν (lit. “to play”). For reasons that are not clear the NIV adds the adj. “pagan” before “revelry” here but not in the exodus passage. For the meaning of the word in biblical texts, see G. Bertram, TDNT 5:625–30.

Meeks, “Rose Up,” 69–71, makes the dubious suggestion that “play” here is intended to cover all five forms of sin listed in vv. 6–10.

Cf. 1 Sam. 18:7; 2 Sam. 6:5, 21; 1 Chr. 13:8; 15:29.

It is noteworthy that the same Hebrew verb and its Greek translation have a clearly erotic sense in Gen. 26:8.

Cf. t. Sot. 6.6: “R. Eliezer b. R. Yosé the Galilean [mid-2nd c. A.D.] says, ‘Playing stated here refers only to fornication, as it is said, The Hebrew servant whom you have brought among us came in to me to play with me’ (Gen. 39:17)” (Neusner, 172)—although in the same passage Akiba is of the opinion that only idolatry is in view.

Tertullian, De Jejunio 6.

Geography 8.6.20. But he is probably mistaken. See the introduction, .

“Mädchen”; for a summary see his Commentary, 12 n. 97.

Ant. 18.65–80.

Particularly so, since a multiple of 23 is so unusual in comparison with a multiple of 24. What is difficult to account for is how such a number might have occurred—or come—to him at all. But see R. Mody, “ ‘The Case of the Missing Thousand’: Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in 1 Corinthians 10:8—a New Proposal,” Churchman 121 (2007), 61–79, who argues that Paul’s reference is not to Num. 25:9 but to the (unnumbered) who were slaughtered in keeping with Moses’ earlier instructions (vv. 4–5); but in the end that helps little in terms of the number itself, as to “why” and “where” it came from.

See the evidence in Str-B, 3:410. Most of the “harmonistic” solutions are less than satisfactory at best, e.g., that 23,000 fell on “one day” while the others died later (Mare, 249; this lies beyond the possibility of demonstration, nor does it fit with the plain sense of the text; besides, where did Paul have access to such a tradition?); or that the actual number was 23,500, which the Pentateuch and Paul “rounded off” in different directions (see H. Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible [Grand Rapids, 1976], 167–69, which he takes quite seriously; but since Paul had access only to the text that already had it rounded off at 24,000, where did he learn of the “correct” number, and why did he round it off downward?).

The impf. ἀπώλλυντο is difficult to account for. Findlay, 860–61, translates “lay a-perishing,” a kind of graphic expression of their scene of misery; R-P, 205, offer the more likely alternative, “perished day by day,” implying that in this case the judgment took place over a several-day period.

In light of the specific mention of the snakes, it seems difficult to maintain (as Willis, 151) that “it is probable that Paul does not have a specific text in mind.”

Gk. ἐκπειράζω, an intensified form of πειράζω, which appears in the second clause.

The best-known occurrence of this idea is Deut. 6:16, cited by Jesus in the temptation narrative in Matthew and Luke. In that case it refers to the waters of Massah/Meribah.

See ; it easily has the best external support (the combination of P⁴⁶, 1739, Clement, the Egyptian versions in Egypt; all the early Western evidence; the earliest evidence from Palestine [Origen]; and Marcion); and one can easily account for the change from Χριστόν to κύριον on two counts: (1) the difficulty with the Israelites’ having tested Christ; (2) the ease of conformation to the well-known text of Deut. 6:16, cited in the temptation narratives in the Gospels. For the full argument, see Osburn ().

It is true, as Parry, 147, notes, that, since the καθώς clause has no expressed object, one might supply “God,” even if “Christ” is read in the first part. But that seems less likely in light of v. 4.

This may also be reflected in the change back to the second person plural imperative here where, as in v. 7, Paul excludes himself.

Although the verb in v. 2 is ἐγγογγύζω, the verb γογγύζω (as here) is used for the same event in v. 27 and is seen as against both the Lord and Moses (in the LXX).

Gk. ὀλοθρευτής, a noun that occurs only here in biblical Greek and only in Christian writings, apparently dependent on this text, in Greek literature. The LXX speaks of ὁ ὀλοθρεύων, “the destroying one,” in Exod. 12:23 (cf. Heb. 11:28) and Wis. 18:25. Although the word “angel” is not in the text, Paul is almost certainly thinking of the destroying angel as responsible for whichever judgment he has in mind (cf. 1 Chr. 21:12, 15, where this actual language does occur). See J. Schneider, TDNT 5:160–70.

Davidson, Typology, 268–69, insists that these examples also serve as “advance-presentation”; but that seems to be asking too much of the text and its wording. That Paul sees a clear corollary seems unquestionable, but one does not need such “typological” language for such an understanding. What Davidson fails to demonstrate is that the more technical usage for this word from a later time is already inherent in Paul’s usage here, when there seems to be no contemporary evidence for it.

Gk. συνέβαινεν ἐκείνοις, with emphasis on the fact that something has occurred to them. The imperfect is probably used because the string of events is viewed as having occurred separately over a period of time.

Gk. τυπικῶς; the adverb of τύπικος. It does not mean “typologically” here, as the following phrase (lit. “for our warning”) indicates. The translation is Barrett’s (226), which nicely catches the nuances. For another view, see Davidson, Typology, 267–69.

It seems likely that δέ here is slightly adversative, contrasting what happened to them and what was written for our warning.

Gk. πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν; the πρός expresses goal or purpose (= “for the purpose of” or “with a view toward”). The ἡμῶν is an objective genitive (cf. the subj. gen. in Eph. 6:4). Thus the phrase could correctly be translated, “but they were written down to warn us.”

Gk. κατήντηκεν, meaning to have “arrived at” or “come to.”

The problem is with the two plurals, τὰ τέλη (“end” or “goal”) and τῶν αἰώνων (“age”). For a discussion of the various options, see Davidson, Typology, 271–74. Whichever option one takes, almost all agree that Paul’s point is that he and the Corinthians belong to the period that marks the end of the ages (translated “fulfillment” in the original NIV [cf. NEB], as a way of expressing the nuance “goal”). The suggestion by A. Souter, Pocket Lexicon of the New Testament (Oxford, 1916), 259, followed by P. Macpherson, “τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων: 1 Corinthians x.11,” ExpT 55 (1943/44), 222, that it means “the (spiritual) revenues of the ages,” has almost nothing to commend it.

Gk. ὥστε (see ).

For a discussion of these as alternative views see Willis, 157–59. To put all of this into a discussion of Calvinist and Arminian understandings of this passage is to miss Paul’s own passionate concern that the Corinthians “stop it”(!) by far too much (e.g., D. M. Ciocchi, “Understanding Our Ability to Endure Temptation: A Theological Watershed,” JETS 35 [1992], 463–79).

The asyndeton of this sentence should be noted. It is possible that the sentence thus begins a new sub-paragraph; more likely it is intended to have the closest possible ties to what is said in v. 12, assuring them that they need not fall.

Gk. πειρασμός, which, depending on context, can have the nuance either of temptation (= “seduction to sin”) or trial/test (which can lead to the former if one does bear up under it).

Gk. εἴληφεν, the perfect of λαμβάνω, with emphasis here on its lying outside their willing or doing; ordinary trials or temptations overtake them, or befall them. This obviously cannot refer to attendance at idol feasts, which they were haughtily doing as their “right”—unless, of course, it is a sudden word to the weak of 8:7–13, which is attractive but unlikely in context, since there is no hint that the audience changes for this verse.

Gk. ἀνθρώπινος (= “what is distinctively human”). In this context it could refer to the origin of the trial, i.e., attendance at idol feasts is not a God-ordained or God-allowed test; it comes from their own human condition of fallenness. But what follows suggests that it refers to the nature of the trial. It does not require superhuman effort for them to abstain, since it is a merely human trial. As the NIV note indicates, the word is esp. difficult to put into English in this case, as the varying translations bear evidence.

Cf. Godet, 69–70: “The Corinthians must be made to understand that they run no risk of sinning and falling away from the faith, if they have only to encounter the temptations God allots to them, but that they have no pledge of victory whatever in the case of temptations into which they throw themselves with light-heartedness.”

On the question of God’s role in “testing” see H. Seesemann, TDNT 6:24–36.

As Conzelmann, 169, rightly notes, “The measure of the bearable cannot be theoretically determined. It shows itself on each occasion in the measure God appoints.”

The two expressions of God’s faithfulness are set forth in an οὐ/ἀλλά (“not/but”) contrast.

Gk. σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ (lit. “with the temptation”), which can either be taken with the verb (= “he will provide along with the temptation”—not meaning that he is the author of it, but that he is there with a way out along with the test itself), or temporally, as the NIV (= at the time of the temptation). They both come out at the same point.

It is common, but unfortunate, for translators (cf. REB, NAB, but not so NRSV, ESV) and commentaries to skip the article with ἔκβασιν; but as Findlay noted, 862, the article with this word corresponds with ὁ πειρασμός to individualize each: “the temptation” and “the way out.”

Cf. Weiss, 255, who argues for “end” as the meaning of ἔκβασις, since the clause “so that you may endure” is superfluous if he is providing a “way out.”

In Barrett’s happy phrase, “The way out is for those who seek it, not for those who (like the Corinthians) are . . . looking for a way in” (229).

A few MSS (F G 365 pc) have substituted εὐχαριστίας (“thanksgiving”) for the original εὐλογίας (“blessing”). For the translation of the NIV see the commentary.

Due to growing liturgical consciousness, the Western witnesses (D F G 629 it vg^mss Ambrosiaster) add καὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς ποτηρίου. It should perhaps also be noted that the paragraphing of the NIV and NA²⁷ differ at this point, the latter including v. 18 as the concluding sentence to what has preceded, a sense division shared by the NEB.

Several MSS (P⁴⁶ * A C* Ψ 6 33 945 1881 pc) omit this second question due to homoeoteleuton. The omission is argued for as original by Clark, “Textual Criticism,” 52–65, but the question is so like Paul, and otherwise so unnecessary to the argument, it is difficult to imagine the scribe who would take it upon himself to make such an addition.

There are several variants in this clause, all due to the addition of τὰ ἔθνη (properly so in terms of meaning, just as the NIV) as the subject of the sentence, lest a careless reader consider the subject still to be “the people of Israel.” See the discussion in Metzger, 494, and Zuntz, 102.

For the difficulties this paragraph poses for other approaches to the historical setting of chaps. 8–10 see, inter alios, Grosheide, 229–30; Mare, 251; and Conzelmann (cf. ).

The κοινωνία/κοινωνός word group is obviously the key both to the presuppositional examples in vv. 16–18 (the Lord’s Table; the Jewish sacrificial meals) and to the description of the pagan meals in vv. 20–21.

Gk. διόπερ (only here and in 8:13 in the NT); Thiselton prefers the REB’s “so then,” Collins the more archaic “wherefore.”

Conzelmann, 170, asserts that “the train of thought in this section is self-contained” and that “it is hardly possible to discern a strict connection of thought with the preceding section, in spite of διόπερ.” To the contrary, not only does it clearly conclude vv. 1–13, but it appropriately concludes the entire argument beginning with 8:1. The relationship of v. 14 to vv. 1–13 is so close that some commentators posit divisions of the section to make that more visible (Findlay and Parry divided it into vv. 1–14 and 15–22; Godet, vv. 1–11 and 12–22).

Gk. ἀγαπητοί μου (lit. “my beloved ones”); cf. 4:14, 17; 15:58; 2 Cor. 7:1; Phil. 2:12; 4:1; cf. Thiselton (“my very dear friends”). As Garland put it (473–74), this “recalls his genuine affection for the Corinthians and their bond before he reloads and fires off a more direct salvo against their compromise.”

Gk. φεύγετε (cf. 6:18); Garland notes several other verbal connections with 6:12–20.

Since Paul uses the accusative in 6:18 (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22), it may be that Héring, 93, is correct in seeing in the ἀπό used here “almost a locative sense: ‘flee pagan temples,’ ” although most commentators think otherwise (e.g., Conzelmann, 171 n. 9).

Godet, 74, was surely wrong in suggesting: “The sacrificial feasts were not idolatry, but they bordered on it and might lead to a fall into it.” Paul’s whole argument is predicated on the essentially idolatrous nature of these feasts, comparable in kind to their eating at the Lord’s Table.

Gk. ὡς, unfortunately omitted in the NIV. Although the difference is slight, Paul does not declare outright that he is speaking to “sensible people,” but that he is speaking as anyone speaking to “sensible people” would do.

Gk. φρόνιμος (cf. 4:10). For reasons that would seem to defy explanation, the REB committee chose to change the NEB’s “men of sense” to “wise men.” Not only is that gender exclusive in contemporary English, it throws off the basic sense of the adjective into the category of “wisdom,” which simply cannot be sustained of this adjective. The contemporary English idiom for this word has to do with something “making sense” (Schrage [Der Erste Brief an die Corinther, 2:433–36] actually uses the English phrase “common sense”).

For a similar use of the more rare φήμι see on 7:29.

As Grosheide, 230, seemed to imply.

The literature on this passage (and 11:17–34) is immense. As one might well expect, one’s own liturgical or nonliturgical tradition often colors this investigation—on either side (the present commentary is not exempt). Among works (by NT scholars) devoted to the Eucharist in the NT in general, see A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament (SBT 6; London, 1952); O. Cullmann, Early Christian Worship (ET, SBT 10; London, 1953); C. F. D. Moule, Worship in the New Testament (Richmond, 1961); R. P. Martin, Worship in the Early Church (Grand Rapids, 1964; rev. 1974); J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (ET, Philadelphia, 1966); E. Schweizer, The Lord’s Supper according to the New Testament (ET, Philadelphia, 1967); W. Marxsen, The Lord’s Supper as a Christological Problem (ET, Philadelphia, 1970); I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids, 1980); G. D. Kilpatrick, The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge, 1982).

Among studies of the Supper in Paul see E. B. Allo, “La synthèse du dogme eucharistique chez saint Paul,” RB 18 (1921), 321–43; J. Jeremias, “Das paulinische Abendmahl—eine Opferdarbringung?” TSK 108 (1937/38), 124–41; E. H. Peters, “Saint Paul and the Eucharist,” CBQ 10 (1948), 247–53; M. E. Boismard, “L’Eucharistie selon Saint Paul,” LumV 31 (1957), 93–106; P. Neuenzeit, Das Herrenmahl. Studien zur paulinischen Eucharistieauffassung (Munich, 1960); S. Aalen, “Das Abendmahl als Opfermahl im Neuen Testament,” NovT 6 (1963), 128–52; E. Käsemann, “Pauline Doctrine,” 108–35; G. Bornkamm, “Lord’s Supper and Church in Paul,” in Early Christian Experience (ET, New York, 1969), 123–60; A. Doudelet, “L’Eucharistie chez Saint Paul,” Collectanea Mechliniensia 54 (1969), 33–50; Murphy-O’Connor, “Eucharist”; H.-J. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief (Münster, 1982).

Cf. C. L. Porter, “An Interpretation of Paul’s Lord’s Supper Texts: 1 Corinthians 10:14–22 and 11:17–34,” Encounter 50 (1989), 29–45.

The basic meaning of the word is “to share with someone in something” (Hauck, TDNT 3:804). On its usage in the NT and Paul see Campbell, “Κοινωνία”; H. Seesemann, Der Begriff Κοινωνία im Neuen Testament (Giessen, 1933); G. V. Jourdan, “ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ in 1 Corinthians 10:16,” JBL 67 (1947), 11–24; S. D. Currie, “Koinonia in Christian Literature to 200 A.D.” (Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 1962); M. McDermott, “The Biblical Doctrine of KOINŌNIA,” BZ 19 (1975), 64–77, 219–33; J. Schattenmann, NIDNTT 1:639–44; Panikulam, Koinōnia, 17–30; Willis, 167–212.

See H.-J. Klauck, “ ‘Leib Christi’—das Mahl des Herrn in 1 Kor 10–12,” BibKirch 5 (2002), 15–21; W. A. Sebothoma, “Κοινωνία in 1 Corinthians 10:16,” Neotestamentica 24 (1990), 63–69; and esp. H. W. Hollander, “The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10.14–22,” NTS 55 (2009), 456–70.

It is found elsewhere only in Did. 9:2–3. On the question whether such an order is known in the “shorter text” in Luke 22:17–20 see Metzger, 173–77.

So also Käsemann, “Pauline Doctrine,” 110; Barrett, 233; Conzelmann, 172. Some have argued for the opposite, namely that Paul here reversed the order so as to emphasize the cup (see, e.g., Findlay, 863; R-P, 212), but that tends to reverse the nature of Paul’s own emphasis. That is, whereas in most contexts one might expect an emphasis on the believers’ fellowship with Christ, here he is trying to get them to see the bread of the table as the place where they reaffirm their common identity in Christ. This emphasis of Paul’s is unfortunately eliminated almost altogether in the later, more sacramental understanding of the table that has tended to disregard the clearly horizontal dimension that Paul is here emphasizing.

For this emphasis in the pagan meals, see the discussion in Willis, 188–92.

PKöln 57, 175–77 (“the god invites you to a banquet being held in the Thoereion tomorrow from the 9th hour”); for text and discussion see G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents 1976, 5–8. Horsley also notes evidence from coins indicating the presence of the god at such a meal.

See esp. Campbell, “Κοινωνία,” 22–25.

See esp. the discussion in Willis, 17–64, 168–81.

Cf. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 237: “To share in the atoning death of Jesus and to become part of the redeemed community—that is, according to Paul, the gift of the Eucharist” (the whole sentence is italicized in Jeremias); cf. Thiselton, who renders Paul’s phrase, “a common participation.”

Indeed, such blessings were mandatory. Cf. b. Ber. 35a: “It is forbidden to man to enjoy anything belonging to this world without a blessing; he who enjoys anything of this world without a blessing commits a violation.” H. W. Beyer (TDNT 2:760) thus describes the Jewish common meal: “The main part is opened with a blessing usually pronounced by the head of the house with a piece of bread in his hand. The others confirm it with an Amen. After this the head of the house breaks the bread and distributes to those who sit at table with him. . . . There is no question of blessing the food and transforming it into something different. He rather praises the Creator who controls the fruits of the earth. At the conclusion of the meal there is a common thanksgiving or praise for the food. Usually the head of the house asks the chief guest to pronounce this. After saying, ‘Let us pronounce the blessing,’ this guest takes the cup of blessing (τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας) and with his eyes on it pronounces a blessing which consists of four benedictions.” Cf. the evidence in the excursus in Str-B, 4:627–36, and now the lengthy excursus in Thiselton (756–60).

See esp. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 87, 109–10; and L. Goppelt, TDNT 6:153–58.

There has been considerable discussion as to whether Paul in this passage is using the language of a pre-Pauline tradition. Since Paul himself admits to having received the tradition of the Table from those before him (11:23), it is possible that this language also belongs to the earlier traditions. But there is no good reason why this is not an ad hoc construction, even if some of the language is earlier. The greater question, which cannot be answered, is whether the κοινωνία language is also earlier, and whether Paul is herewith appealing to language with which the Corinthians would have been familiar. See the discussion in Willis, 193–96. The point is moot, since the Corinthians would certainly have understood such terminology already from their pagan background.

Meaning of course that the new covenant was to be ratified by his death. See on 11:25.

Although there is no evidence of any kind for it in the NT itself, the close association between the “broken bread” and Jesus’ “broken” body on the cross (despite the Evangelists’ explicit note that no bones were broken[!]) caused the bread eventually to be interpreted in this way (see the much later textual gloss in 11:24: “my body, which is broken for you”).

This is suggested by some (e.g., Findlay, 864; Weiss, 258; Moffatt, 135; Grosheide, 234).

Cf. Jewett, Terms, 257–59, although his positing of a gnostic background on the basis of a partitioning of the letter seems quite mistaken.

Cf. Thiselton (767), “The word many has virtually the force of a subordinate concessive, many as we are (cf. REB, we, though many).”

Another explanatory γάρ.

Gk. μετέχω (cf. v. 21), used here specifically for sharing together in the food of the meal; cf. 9:10 and 12.

Nothing is to be made of the unusual use of ἐκ with ἄρτος; it is a Hebraism: all eat from the one loaf.

Perhaps implying further that they are one body because they derive nourishment from the same source (Findlay, 864); but Paul himself does not press this.

Contra Conzelmann, 172.

Gk. τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα. This language has elicited some discussion, esp. among dispensationalists and their opponents, as to how Paul understands the term “Israel.” One thing is certain: he intends to refer to the sacrificial meals in ancient Israel. As BDAG 4 indicate, the usage of κατὰ σάρκα here probably refers to their earthly descent, similar to the usage in Rom. 4:1 and 9:3. Nonetheless, the very usage, which is otherwise unnecessary, seems to imply that there is another Israel κατὰ πνεῦμα.

Some have seen a parallel in Philo, spec.leg. 1.221, in a passage explaining why the food of these meals must be eaten in three days. One reason, he says, is that it no longer belongs to the one who made the sacrifice, but to God to whom it was made, who as “the benefactor, the bountiful, . . . has made the convivial company of those who carry out the sacrifices partners (κοινωνόν) of the altar (τοῦ βωμοῦ) whose board they share” (Loeb, 7:229). Obviously this means to share in the food of the altar.

Otherwise Héring, 95, who says that it refers primarily to the priests, then to the people.

On this matter H. Gressmann, “H ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΩΝ,” ZNW 20 (1921), 224–30, led a number of scholars astray by suggesting that “altar” is a circumlocution for “God.” For a rebuttal see Campbell, “Κοινωνία,” 24; and Willis, 184–88.

The tie in this verse between “idol food” and “idol” at the meal in the pagan temples, which at the same time returns to the argument of 8:4, is sure evidence that εἰδωλόθυτα throughout chap. 8 refers to the temple meals, not to marketplace food. Otherwise Conzelmann, 173 n. 34, who notes that the language recalls chap. 8, but insists that the problem is a different one.

Gk. φήμι; see above on v. 15 and 7:29. Thiselton (773) prefers something stronger: “what, then, do I mean to affirm?”

The NIV’s “a sacrifice offered to an idol” is misleading here; this is the same word, εἰδωλόθυτον, with which the whole argument began back in 8:1 (cf. 8:4, 7).

On the textual question see .

Gk. ἀλλά, the strong adversative being used “before independent clauses, to indicate that the preceding is to be regarded as a settled matter, thus forming a transition to someth[ing] new” (BDAG 3).

Although Paul is here citing or alluding to the LXX of Deut. 32:17, he does not intend to say that “the pagans are not sacrificing to God,” meaning the God whom we Christians know and worship. That would be irrelevant at best. Paul means either “not to a god,” or “to demons, even to one who is no-god.” See esp. Deut. 32:21 (alluded to in v. 22 below), where Israel made God “jealous” by sacrificing to “what is no god.” Cf. R-P, 216.

From the aorist ἔθυσαν to the present θύουσιν.

Cf. Ps. 96:5, “all the gods of the nations are idols,” which the LXX renders “are demons.” See also Ps. 106:37; Isa. 65:3 (LXX); 65:11 (LXX); Bar. 4:7.

It is fashionable among modern scholars to “exonerate” Paul at this point as being a man of his times. He believed in demons as did all his contemporaries; but we do not because we have “come of age.” But that takes neither biblical revelation nor spiritual reality seriously. Bultmann’s “modern man,” who cannot believe in such reality, is the true “myth,” not the gospel he set out to “demythologize.” The cloistered existence of the Western university tends to isolate Western academics from the realities that many Third World people experience on a regular basis. Even Thiselton wishes to water this down to “demonic forces.”

Gk. γίνεσθαι, lit. “become.”

See Thiselton (776), who views Paul’s “cannot” to have a threefold implication (logical, empirical, institutional).

Gk. μετέχω again, for the actual act of eating; cf. v. 17.

For the significance of a table for the “god,” see in the introduction to chaps. 8–10.

The common term in Protestant churches, “the Lord’s Table,” is dependent on this passage, as “the Lord’s Supper” is on 11:20.

The combination of μετέχω and κοινωνία with pagans, in a context forbidding idolatry, suggests that 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1 may be a further reflection on this problem. See G. D. Fee, “II Cor. vi.14–vii.1 and Food Offered to Idols,” NTS 23 (1976/77), 140–61, reprinted in To What End Exegesis? (129–53).

Even at the end, although Paul himself would never have been party to this particular sin, he appeals to them by the inclusive “we.” His point seems to be, “Are we in our situation to be thought of as any better off than Israel in theirs?”

Gk. παραζηλοῦμεν, the same word used in the LXX of Deut. 32:21; cf. Rom. 10:19, but see also 11:11 and 14. Some have argued for a “deliberative subjunctive” here (= “let us not . . .”; see Thiselton, 777).

Because the OT text refers to Yahweh, some think that God the Father is also in view here; but the immediately preceding references to Christ as Lord (v. 21) suggest otherwise, that Paul has in mind his usual reference to Christ. Cf. on v. 9.

Since Paul probably had Christ in mind in the former question, it is just possible, but highly improbable, that he is reflecting on some aspect of Christ’s earthly life, who in his incarnation was totally dependent on the Father, and in the desert refused to put God to the test. For a possible link of this language to Deut. 32 in the Targums, see B. S. Rosner, “ ‘Stronger Than He?’ The Strength of 1 Corinthians 10:22b,” TynB 43 (1992), 171–79.

Some see here an indirect ironic mention of the “strong” (cf. Héring, 97; Barrett, 238), but that seems unlikely.

Garland, 482.

“Sacrament,” 261–68.

The two clauses that begin this next phase of the argument are so abrupt and so thoroughly qualified that the majority of English translations have assumed (almost certainly correctly) that Paul is here citing the Corinthians themselves; and since Paul’s opening clauses are so abrupt (Gk. πάντα ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ’, “everything is permitted, but . . .”), the NIV translators have tried to help the reader by both using quotation marks and adding “you say” (cf. NEB, but not kept in the REB). Perhaps of even greater interest is the adherence of so many contemporary English versions to the language “lawful” (NRSV, REB [a change from the NEB’s “are free”], NAB, ESV), since in a biblical context that implies adherence to the “law” in some manner, whereas BDAG do not even offer this as an alternative!

Against all the early evidence the MajT has added a subject (ἕκαστος, “each”) to this second clause.

The words “to a meal” are not in Paul’s text but are necessary to the sense, hence the Western addition εἰς δεῖπνον (cf. REB, NRSV, but not the NAB, while the usually more rigid ESV here adds the colloquial “to dinner”!).

The ἱερόθυτον of P⁴⁶ A B H 1175* 1739* b sa Ambrosiaster has been conformed to the εἰδωλόθυτον of 8:1, 4, 7; 10:19 by the rest of the tradition. The latter cannot be original, since there is no way to account for ἱερόθυτον if it were. Cf. Zuntz, 134.

A few Western MSS (F G a b d vg^mss Cyprian) try to make some sense of this interruption by changing ἄλλης to ἀπίστου.

Collins (382) refers to this passage as “summing up,” but in fact it seems to take previous matters to a new level. Thiselton (779) seems closer to the mark with his heading “Freedom and Love: Residual Issues and Recapitulation.”

Although this, too, may have been raised in their letter, it seems more likely that what is at issue is Paul’s own conduct, which they have used against him and his apostleship (see on 9:1–3, 19–23). The affinities of this passage with 9:19–23 are so many and striking (cf. Hurd, 130) that it seems likely that Paul is here returning to an issue to which he has alluded before, but now is putting in the form of a general parenesis for them to follow as well. In any case, he takes a completely different stance toward this question than he did toward the previous one, including the form of argumentation, which is nearly devoid of anything combative (except for vv. 29b–30, where in the first person singular he defends his own conduct).

B. Winter (After Paul, 287–301) raises the intriguing question as to why this had never been raised while Paul was in Corinth, “What changed after Paul left Corinth?” His suggested response is that it may be related to the lifting of a ban on identifying meat in the market as kosher or not.

See

The “parallels” that Hurd, 129, alleges between this passage and 8:1–13 are as strikingly not parallel as those between 10:30–11:1 and 9:20–23 are in fact.

This is the most common way of trying to reconcile the obvious differences between this passage and chap. 8. The difficulties with this solution are not adequately addressed by its proponents. (1) Vv. 23–24 must be spoken to the “strong”; so also must be the proviso of vv. 28–29a, since as instruction to the “weak” it makes no sense at all (how can one of the “weak” be told not to eat what would have “destroyed” him had he eaten it in the first place, and that because of the other person’s conscience?). That also means, therefore, that v. 27 must also be addressed to the “strong.” Is one to argue that without a hint Paul shifts his audience in vv. 25–26 to the “weak,” esp. when v. 27 seems to address the same people? Indeed, any suggestion that Paul changes audiences without the slightest hint of such in the text itself needs to rest on otherwise impregnable exegesis, which is lacking here. All the more so when the audience must change three times in five verses in order to satisfy this point of view. (2) It seems nearly impossible that Paul would now command the “weak” of 8:7–13 to do the very thing that he acknowledges would destroy them, and that without addressing the real issue for them—its idolatrous associations. This solution, as popular as it is, simply does not wash.

The proviso of v. 28, plus the general context of chaps. 8–10, suggests this. Thus Conzelmann, 176, is not quite precise to assert that what kind of meat it is “is a matter of indifference, since the principle of freedom is upheld.” If it were not for the possibly questionable nature of this meat, the issue would not even have been raised!

Winter (After Paul Left Corinth, chap. 13) raises an even more complexing issue: why hadn’t this matter arisen before Paul left Corinth, for which, of course, the answer can be only speculative, and therefore not exegetically viable.

The difficulty with finding a workable English equivalent for this word can be seen in Thiselton’s using two different English words in the two citations (“rights,” “liberty”).

The noun of the verb used in the slogan “all things are permissible.”

For the probability that this is a Corinthian slogan, as well as for further details on its meaning, see the discussion on 6:12.

Otherwise Godet, 93, who thinks it refers to “spiritual good in general, including our own”; cf. Parry, 153, “to the persons themselves, who possess the freedom.” But that seems to miss the larger context. As Findlay, 866, notes: “In ch. vi he bade his readers guard the application of the principle for their own sake, now for the sake of others.”

Gk. οἰκοδομεῖ, usually translated “build up.” See on 8:1 and 10; cf. 14:3–5. In 1 Corinthians, apart from the specific exception in 14:4, it means to help someone else or the community as a whole advance in their life in Christ. That this is what it means here is made certain by what follows immediately (v. 24).

While it is true that this parenesis in effect summarizes 8:1–3 and 7–13 (so Weiss, 263), the application Paul will make in the sentences that follow differs radically from the earlier passage. There (8:7–13) it led effectively to prohibition with regard to temple meals; here it qualifies personal freedom but does not have the effect of fencing it in. Thus Paul here establishes the greater motivation of behavior without eliminating personal freedom.

Such as one finds, e.g., in Rom. 14:13–23, a passage that seems to be a later reworking of some of the ideas found here; but the parallels presented by R. J. Karris (“Rom 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” CBQ 35 [1973], 163–69) are overdrawn, esp. in terms of what is going on in 1 Corinthians.

One of the more common ways is to assert that Paul is now addressing the “weak,” telling them not to be so scrupulous. But that will scarcely work; see .

Paul’s word order is emphatic. Anything sold in the meat market, eat, etc.

Gk. ἐν μακέλλῳ, thought by most to be a Roman word taken over into the Greek cities; see H. J. Cadbury, “The Macellum of Corinth,” JBL 53 (1934), 134–41 (although BDAG expresses doubts about this). The lack of the article, as Cadbury pointed out, probably reflects a common idiom, similar to our “at home” or “in church.”

The macellum itself was one of the more prominent shops in the Roman and Greek marketplaces, as is evidenced esp. by the ruins at Pompeii, and supported by other excavations. It was “a rectangular court of pillars with a fountain in the middle and over it, supported by the pillars, a dome-shaped roof . . . ; the booths on the sides; before them porticos” (J. Schneider, TDNT 4:371). A Latin inscription of the macellum in Corinth has been discovered, undoubtedly the very one Paul is referring to here; see the account in Cadbury.

The full story on this matter is not yet fully known. Apparently priests by and large served as the town butchers; whether all meat therefore was “sacrificial” is moot. See the discussion by Ehrhardt, “Social Problems,” 276–90, who has argued that the butchering and selling of meat was regulated in the Roman Empire for combined political-religious reasons. It has been argued, probably correctly so, that in any case such meat would usually be of the finest quality and thus demand a higher price (C. M. McDonough, “The Christian in the Ancient Meat Market: Neglected Evidence for the Pricing of Idol Meat,” SewTR 47 [2004], 278–89). In any case, Murphy-O’Connor is most likely correct in noting that in a city like Corinth most of the meat sold in the market would have originated as sacrificial offerings (St. Paul’s Corinth, 33).

As is evidenced by the Apostolic Decree and Rev. 2:14 and 20. See the discussion on .

Gk. ἀνακρίνω; see on 2:15; 4:3; 9:3.

Cf. M. Isenberg, “The Sale of Sacrificial Meat,” Classical Philology 70 (1975), 271–73.

On this question see m. Abod.Zar. 2.3 (cited on ). That food needed to be “investigated” among the Jews is most vividly demonstrated by the fact that an entire Mishnaic tractate (Hullin) is devoted to regulations for “animals killed for food.”

For the discussion of this word in Paul, see on 8:7; this same phrase occurs three times in this argument (vv. 25, 27, 28).

Cf. R-P, 120, “asking no questions which might trouble conscience. It is wise not to seek difficulties”; and Grosheide, 241, “should it appear later that they had eaten sacrificial meat, they still would not have committed any sin.” See also C. Maurer, TDNT 7:915, whose discussion is esp. impaired by his dividing this passage into “weak” and “strong.”

The γάρ is causal, expressing the reason or basis for an action. E. Lohse (“Zu I Cor 10.26, 31,” ZNW 47 [1956], 277–80) suggests that the γάρ represents “for it is written.” That may be so, but it is unnecessary.

LXX 23:1, which is cited here verbatim.

See b. Ber. 35a, cited in n. 26 on 10:16; cf. t. Ber. 4.1: “[following a citation of Ps. 24:1] He that getteth enjoyment out of this world without a Benediction, behold, he has defrauded (the Lord), to such a degree that at last all the commands are loosed for him” (Oesterley, 45).

As Findlay, 867, observes: “When one buys for himself, the question arises at the shop; when he is a guest of another, it arises at the table.” Paul’s point is that neither location is a legitimate place to inquire about the origin of the food.

Gk. ἄπιστος; see the discussion on 7:12.

See, e.g., the story of Peter in Acts 10:9–23, and esp. 11:2–3; cf. the haggadah in t. Abod.Zar. 4.6: “R. Simeon b. Eleazar [late 2nd c. A.D.] says, ‘Israelites who live abroad are idolaters.’ ‘How so?’ ‘A gentile who made a banquet for his son and went and invited all the Jews who live in his town—even though they eat and drink their own [food and wine], and their own waiter stands over them and serves them, they nonetheless serve idolatry, as it is said, and one invites you, and you eat of his sacrifices (Ex. 34:15).’ ”

Gk. καλεῖ; the other verb so used is ἐρωτάω.

See, e.g., Conzelmann, 177, following von Soden, “Sacrament,” 264.

As, e.g., Conzelmann, 177, does. This is purely gratuitous, esp. since Paul is creating the situation himself!

The two sentences are asyndetic. The first is a simple imperative, since everyone would frequent the marketplace; the second is a real condition (εἰ with the indicative, followed by the imperative).

Although obviously not all would agree with him as to what constitutes adiaphora!

Gk. ἐάν τις εἴπῃ, a suppositional condition.

Because of the difficulties in identifying the interlocutor, Willis, 242–45, has offered the unlikely suggestion that vv. 28–29a do not qualify v. 27, but rather begin a new section of parenesis that carries through to 11:1. It functions as a “general restriction,” predicated on v. 24, to both vv. 25 and 27, while vv. 29b–30 function to further the point of vv. 28–29a. But to do this Willis must overlook the clear grammatical tie to v. 27: “But (a clearly adversative δέ) if anyone says . . .” (cf. the similar qualifying use of ἐὰν δέ in 7:11, 28, 39; 14:24, 28, 30).

For a fuller discussion of these options, see Willis, 240–43, although he is too prone to minimize serious weaknesses in some and maximize strengths in others. This issue is more resoluble than he allows, apparently because he is pressing for another option altogether. See the preceding note.

Those who take this position usually assume that the fellow Christian is present at the meal and has made earnest inquiry about the meat. One of the acknowledged difficulties with this view is that such a person is unlikely to have accepted the invitation in the first place.

A late word, which does not appear often in the literature; but see Plutarch, Mor. 729C.

The same question, of course, must be answered if the informant is a believer. How will a believer’s “conscience” be affected one way or the other by the action of another believer in this matter? Will they be offended? Tempted to follow suit against conscience?

See the discussion in Ehrhardt () as to the religious and political importance of butchering and selling meat in the Greco-Roman world.

Note the contemporary example offered by Bruce, 100, over alcoholic content in food or drink in a context where some Christians are total abstainers.

Gk. μηνύω; this word implies private communication.

These two nouns form one idea in Greek, being controlled by the same preposition. However, Paul seems intentionally to have separated “conscience” since he could easily have said “the conscience of the informant.” In this case, Paul is saying, in contrast to the earlier examples, “conscience” is involved.

Note the very close linguistic ties between these final words and the criterion in v. 24.

This, by the way, seems to be the best answer as to why Paul does not appeal to the conscience of the weak in Rom. 14: adiaphora are not matters of Christian conscience. Thus one cares for the people involved and recognizes the genuine differences in these matters, but there is no appeal to the conscience of the weak in this case.

Cf. the RSV (changed in the NRSV), which understood the text in a similar way by putting parentheses around vv. 28–29b, suggesting, as here, that that is the material which really intrudes into the present argument. In this view the γάρ of v. 29b refers back to v. 27. Cf. Bruce, 100.

Among the more noteworthy: (1) Some find it so difficult as to deny its authenticity, seeing it as an interpolation by a later hand (e.g., Weiss, 265–66; Zuntz, 17). But that raises more questions than it solves, since it does not resolve the contextual issue; it only removes it one step from Paul. (2) Lietzmann, 51 (followed inter alios by Pierce, Conscience, 78; Wendland, 83–84; cf. the NEB, GNB, Montgomery, NAB), sees Paul, in the style of the diatribe, as suddenly introducing the objections of one of the “strong.” But that assumes that Paul is dealing with the “weak” and the “strong” here, which is unlikely, and opts for a solution for which there is no internal hint in the text itself. Furthermore, and of even greater difficulty, why should Paul do so and then not provide an answer? (3) Others see it as a response to the aggressive activity of the “weak,” who are assumed to be in view in v. 29b; Paul is thus telling them not to take undue advantage of the forbearance of the “strong” (e.g., Grosheide, 244; Héring, 99; Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 109). Besides having against it all the difficulties noted above on with regard to sudden changes of audience with no internal clues to such, this makes little sense of the strongly defensive and personal tone of the rhetoric. (4) Others see it as a further elaboration of vv. 28b–29, in which Paul is explaining by way of rhetoric that the person who has thus limited his freedom for the sake of another has not really lost his own freedom on these matters (see Bultmann, Theology, 217–19; Barrett, 243). (5) Still others see it as an elaboration of vv. 28–29b, but in the sense that Paul is asking rhetorically how one can consider going ahead with eating if one knows beforehand that it will lead to one’s being judged and blasphemed for it; thus it becomes a further reason for forgoing one’s privileges to eating (see Findlay, 869; Conzelmann, 178; Willis, 247–50). Although either of the latter two is more satisfactory than the first three, it must be admitted that such an explanation does not immediately come to mind as the purpose of such rhetoric, esp. the decidedly defensive tone of the second question. One can generally make good sense of the first question from this perspective (by making it subjunctive, “Why should I let this happen?”); but the second question does not seem to answer the first when it is put in this way. It does not in fact say, as Findlay translates, “What good end will be served . . . ?” (869). See now D. F. Watson, “1 Corinthians 10:23–11:1 in the Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric: The Role of Rhetorical Questions,” JBL 108 (1989), 301–18.

Gk. βλασφημοῦμαι; lit. “being blasphemed, or reviled.” This is particularly strong language for this argument.

The Greek literally says, “another conscience,” but as Barrett, 242, points out, that is hardly English. The Greek intends the conscience of another person.

Gk. ἱνατί (= “for what reason”); this question is the one that makes possible solutions (4) or (5) (see ).

There seems to be no justification for the subjunctive translation of the NIV and RSV (“Why should my freedom be judged?”). Where ἱνατί occurs with the present tense elsewhere in the NT it means, “Why is this going on?” See Matt. 9:4; Luke 13:7; Acts 7:26.

The attempt by Findlay, 869, exhibits the difficulties. He argues that the τί in the apodosis is to be viewed as prospective and should be read as εἰς τί or ἱνατί. The suggestion is that one who thanks God as a Christian over idol food is committing blasphemy. Willis, 249–50, tends to skirt the grammatical and lexical difficulties altogether.

Gk. μετέχω; see on v. 17 above.

Gk. χάριτι (dative of manner).

Gk. οὖν; infrequent in this letter. See 4:16; 5:7 etc.

J. F. M. Smit has pointed out that the three final exhortations (vv. 31, 32; 11:1) fit the rhetorical scheme of recapitulation of the entire argument to this point (from 8:1); “The Function of First Corinthians 10,23–30: A Rhetorical Anticipation,” Bib 78 (1997), 377–88.

R-P, 224, suggest that such is included in this clause.

For this theme in Paul, see S. Aalen, NIDNTT 2:44–48; here it means to his praise, i.e., so that the believer’s actions will bring him glory, honor, and praise. Otherwise, Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 109–11, who would define it as God’s “righteousness.” Believers give him “glory” as they become like him in righteousness. Most likely A. Cowan has it right in suggesting that this command ultimately means to do all things with the aim of seeing God praised by others (“The Glory of God, Evangelism, and the Imitation of Paul,” StulosTJ 12 [2004], 57–67).

Gk. ἀπρόσκοποι γίνεσθε; the adjective is the negative form of the noun that appears in 8:9.

As is often pointed out, ἀπρόσκοπος here, in contrast to Acts 24:16, is transitive. The usage in Phil. 1:10 is ambiguous.

Willis, 255–56, says that Paul’s emphasis is “clearly on ‘the church of God.’ ” But in light of the purpose clause that concludes the argument (v. 33), “that they may be saved,” that is not at all clear!

Cf. on 1:18 and 22. The old categories Jew and Gentile have given way to the new, “being saved” and “perishing.” Both of the former categories now belong to the perishing. In the case of the Jew, partaking would tend to offend; in the case of the Greek, except for a rare few (see Conzelmann, 179 n. 36), abstention might be the cause of the gospel’s not getting its proper hearing. On the basis of this passage, some of the early Church Fathers referred to the church as a “third race” (cf. Parry, 155).

As often in Paul, “Greek” represents all non-Jewish people within the so-called civilized world. See on 1:22–24.

For this language in reference to the early Christian communities, see on 1:2. It is not clear, as Findlay, 869, suggests, that this usage “transcends a local reference.” It may become the source of such usage (e.g., in Colossians and Ephesians), but here it probably refers first of all to the church of God in Corinth.

Gk. μίμηταί μου γίνεσθε. Godet, 102, rightly notes that the verb here means “become,” not “be.”

To say that does not mean, however, as Conzelmann asserts, 180, that the imitation of Christ does not take its bearings either on the historical Jesus or his teachings. Lying behind Christ’s “saving work” is not only the event of his death but also a life lived for others, as well as his teaching. Even though Paul has not here specifically referred to any single teaching of Jesus, the parenesis itself is permeated by the spirit of that teaching, even if not by the language. On “food,” e.g., cf. Mark 7:1–19, which in v. 19b Mark himself interprets for his church as Jesus’ “declaring all foods clean.” On this matter see on 4:16.

↑ Back to top