Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 10

1 Corinthians Chapter 10

Regarding the design of this chapter, commentators have not been agreed. Some have supposed that there is no connection with the preceding, but that this is a digression. The ancient Greek expositors generally, and some of the moderns, like Grotius, supposed that the connection was this: Paul had in the previous chapter described himself as mortifying his flesh and keeping his body under, so that he might gain the prize.

In this chapter, they suppose that his object is to exhort the Corinthians to do the same. To do this, he admonishes them not to be lulled into security by the idea of the many spiritual gifts that had been conferred upon them. He enforces this admonition by the example of the Jews, who had also been highly favored but who had nevertheless been led into idolatry. This is also the view of Doddridge, Calvin, and others. Macknight regards the chapter as an independent discussion of the three questions, which he supposes had been submitted to Paul:

1. Whether they might innocently go with their friends into the heathen temples and partake of the feasts that were made there in honor of the idol.
2. Whether they might buy and eat meat sold in the markets that had been sacrificed to idols.
3. Whether, when invited to the houses of the heathens, they might partake of the meat sacrificed to idols, and which was set before them as a common meal.

I regard this chapter as having a very close connection with 1 Corinthians 8.

At the close of chapter 8 (1 Corinthians 9:13), Paul had stated, when examining the question of whether it was right to eat meat offered in sacrifice to idols, that the grand principle on which he acted, and on which they should act, was that of self-denial. To illustrate this, he employs the ninth chapter, showing how he acted on it regarding maintenance and demonstrating that it was this principle that led him to decline support to which he was really entitled.

Having illustrated that, he returns in this chapter to the subject he was discussing in chapter 8. The design of this chapter is further to explain and enforce the sentiments advanced there and to settle some other inquiries pertaining to the same general subject. The first point, therefore, on which he insists is the danger of relapsing into idolatry—a danger that would arise should they be in the habit of frequenting the temples of idols and of partaking of the meats offered in sacrifice (1 Corinthians 10:1–24). He had cautioned them against this in general in 1 Corinthians 8:7, 9-12.

He now sets forth this danger by a variety of illustrations. He first shows them that the Jews had been highly favored, had been solemnly consecrated to Moses and to God, and had been under the Divine protection and guidance (1 Corinthians 10:1–4); yet this had not kept them from the displeasure of God when they sinned (1 Corinthians 10:5).

He shows that, notwithstanding their privileges, they had indulged in inordinate desires (1 Corinthians 10:6); that they had become idolaters (1 Corinthians 10:7); that they had been guilty of licentiousness (1 Corinthians 10:8); that they had tempted their leader and guide (1 Corinthians 10:9); that they had murmured (1 Corinthians 10:10); and that, as a consequence of this, many of them had been destroyed.

In view of all this, Paul cautions the Corinthians not to be self-confident or to feel secure, and not to throw themselves into the way of temptation by partaking of the feasts of idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:12–14). He further illustrates this danger (1 Corinthians 10:15–24) by showing that if they partook of those sacrifices, they in fact became identified with the worshippers of idols.

He proved this by showing that in the Christian communion, those who partook of the Lord's Supper were identified with Christians (1 Corinthians 10:16–17); that in the Jewish sacrifices the same thing occurred, and those who partook of them were regarded as Jews and as worshippers of the same God with them (1 Corinthians 10:18); and that the same thing must occur, in the nature of the case, by partaking of the sacrifices offered to idols.

They were really partaking of that which had been offered to devils; and Paul would solemnly admonish them against any such participation (1 Corinthians 10:19–22). Therefore, going on the supposition that there was nothing wrong in itself in partaking of the meat that had been thus killed in sacrifice, Paul nevertheless says (1 Corinthians 10:23) that it was not expedient to expose themselves to danger in this way, and that the grand principle should be to seek the comfort and edification of others (1 Corinthians 10:24). Paul thus strongly and decisively admonishes them not to enter the temples of idols to partake of those feasts, not to unite with idolaters in their celebration, and not to endanger their piety by these temptations.

There were, however, two other questions on the subject that it was important to decide, and that had probably been submitted to him in the letter they had sent for counsel and advice. The first was whether it was right to purchase and eat the meat that had been sacrificed and was exposed indiscriminately with other meat in the market (1 Corinthians 10:25).

To this Paul replies that since no evil could result from this, as it could not be alleged that they purchased it as meat sacrificed to idols, and as all that the earth contained belonged to the Lord, it was not wrong to purchase and to use it. Yet if even this was pointed out to them as having been sacrificed to idols, he then cautioned them to abstain from it (1 Corinthians 10:28).

The other question was whether it was right for them to accept the invitation of a heathen and to partake of meat then that had been offered in sacrifice (1 Corinthians 10:27). A similar answer was returned to this. The general principle was that no questions were to be asked regarding what was set before them; but if the food was expressly pointed out as having been offered in sacrifice, then to partake of it would be regarded as a public recognition of the idol (1 Corinthians 10:28–30).

Paul then concludes the discussion by stating the noble rule that is to guide in all this: that everything is to be done to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31), and that the great effort of the Christian should be to act in all things so as to honor his religion and not lead others into sin (1 Corinthians 10:32–33).

Moreover, brethren. But, or now (de.). This verse, with the following illustrations (1 Corinthians 10:1–4), is properly connected in Paul's argument with the statements he had made in 1 Corinthians 8:8 and following, and is designed to show the danger that would result from their partaking of the feasts that were celebrated in honor of idols.

It is not improbable, as Mr. Locke supposes, that the Corinthians might have urged that they were constantly solicited by their heathen friends to attend those feasts. They might have argued that in their circumstances it was scarcely possible to avoid it, and that there could be no danger of their relapsing into idolatry. Furthermore, they might have contended that their doing so could not be offensive to God, for several reasons: they were known to be Christians; they had been baptized and purified from sin; they were devoted to His service; they knew that an idol was nothing in the world; and they had been so highly favored as the people of God with so many extraordinary endowments and were so strongly guarded against the possibility of becoming idolaters.

To meet these considerations, Paul refers them to the example of the ancient Jews. They also were the people of God. They had been solemnly dedicated to Moses and to God. They had been peculiarly favored with spiritual food from heaven and with drink miraculously poured from the rock. Yet, notwithstanding this, they had forgotten God, had become idolaters, and had been destroyed. Therefore, by their example, Paul would warn the Corinthians against a similar danger.

I would not that you should be ignorant. A large part of the church at Corinth were Gentiles. It could hardly be supposed that they were well informed respecting the ancient history of the Jews. Probably they had read these things in the Old Testament, but they might not have them distinctly in their recollection. Paul brings them distinctly before their minds as an illustration and an admonition. The sense is, 'I would not have you unmindful or forgetful of these things; I would have you recollect this case and allow their example to influence your conduct. I would not have you suppose that even a solemn consecration to God and the possession of distinguished tokens of Divine favor are a security against the danger of sin, and even apostasy, since the example of the favored Jews shows that even in such circumstances there is danger.'

How that all our fathers. This refers to the fathers of the Jewish community, the fathers of us who are Jews. Paul speaks here as being himself a Jew and refers to his own ancestors as such. The word 'all' here seems to be introduced to give emphasis to the fact that even those who were destroyed (1 Corinthians 10:5) also had this privilege. It could not be pretended that they had not been devoted to God, since all of them had been thus consecrated professedly to His service. The entire Jewish community that Moses led forth from Egypt had thus been devoted to Him.

Were under the cloud. The cloud—the Shechinah—was the visible symbol of the Divine presence and protection that attended them out of Egypt. This went before them by day as a cloud to guide them, and by night it became a pillar of fire to give them light (Exodus 13:21–22). In the dangers of the Jews, when closely pressed by the Egyptians, it went behind them and became dark to the Egyptians but light to the Israelites, thus constituting a defense (Exodus 14:20).

In the wilderness, when traveling through the burning desert, it seems to have been expanded over the camp as a covering and a defense from the intense rays of a burning sun. Numbers 10:34 says, And the cloud of JEHOVAH was upon them by day.Numbers 14:14 states, Thy cloud standeth over them. The apostle refers to this fact here.

It was a symbol of the Divine favor and protection . It was a guide, a shelter, and a defense. The Jewish rabbis say that 'the cloud encompassed the camp of the Israelites as a wall encompasses a city, nor could the enemy come near them' (Pirke Eleazar, c. 44, as quoted by Gill). The probability is that the cloud extended over the whole camp of Israel, and that to those at a distance it appeared as a pillar.

And all passed through the sea. This refers to the Red Sea, through which they passed under the guidance of Moses and by the miraculous interposition of God (Exodus 14:21–22). This was also a proof of the Divine protection and favor, and is so adduced by the apostle. His object is to accumulate the evidences of Divine favor to them and to show that they had as many securities against apostasy as the Corinthians had, on which they so much relied.

(See Exodus 14:19-22, 29 regarding all passed.)

And were all baptized. Regarding the meaning of the word "baptized" (see Barnes on Matthew 3:6), we are not to suppose that the rite of baptism, as we understand it, was formally administered by Moses or by any other person to the Jews, for there is not the least evidence that any such rite was then known, and the very circumstances referred to here forbid such an interpretation.

They were baptized "in the cloud" and "in the sea," and this cannot be understood as a religious rite administered by the hand of man. It is to be remembered that the word baptism has two senses: one referring to the application of water as a religious rite, in whatever mode it is done, and the other the sense of dedicating, consecrating, initiating into, or bringing under obligation to. And it is evidently in this latter sense that the word is used here, denoting that they were devoted to Moses as a leader; they were brought under his laws, they became bound to obey him, and they were placed under his protection and guidance by the miraculous interposition of God. This was done by the fact that their passing through the sea and under the cloud, in this manner, brought them under the authority and direction of Moses as a leader and was a public recognition of their being his followers and being bound to obey his laws.

Unto Moses (eis). This is the same preposition that is used in the form of baptism prescribed in Matthew 28:19 (see Barnes on Matthew 28:19).

It means that they were thus devoted or dedicated to Moses; they received and acknowledged him as their ruler and guide; they professed subjection to his laws and were brought under his authority. They were thus initiated into his religion, and thus recognized his Divine mission and bound themselves to obey his injunctions. —Bloomfield.

In the cloud. This cannot be proved to mean that they were enveloped and, as it were, immersed in the cloud, for there is no evidence that the cloud thus enveloped them or that they were immersed in it as a person is in water. The whole account in the Old Testament leads us to suppose that the cloud either passed before them as a pillar, or that it had the same form in the rear of their camp, or that it was suspended over them and was thus the symbol of the Divine protection.

It would be altogether improbable that the dark cloud would pervade the camp. It would thus embarrass their movements, and there is not the slightest intimation in the Old Testament that it did. Nor is there any probability in the supposition of Dr. Gill and others that the cloud, as it passed from the rear to the front of the camp, "let down a plentiful rain upon them, by which they were in such a condition as if they had been all over dipped in water." For:

1. There is not the slightest intimation of this in the Old Testament.

2. The supposition is contrary to the very design of the cloud. It was not a natural cloud but was a symbol of the Divine presence and protection. It was not to give rain on the Israelites or on the land, but it was to guide and to be an emblem of the care of God.

3. It is doing violence to the Scriptures to introduce suppositions in this manner without the slightest authority. It is further to be observed that this supposition does by no means give any aid to the cause of the Baptist after all. In what conceivable sense were they, even on this supposition, immersed?

Is it immersion in water when one is exposed to a shower of rain? We speak of being sprinkled or drenched by rain, but is it not a violation of all propriety of language to say that a man is immersed in a shower? If the supposition, therefore, is to be admitted that rain fell from the cloud as it passed over the Jews, and that this is meant here by "baptism unto Moses," then it would follow that sprinkling would be the mode referred to, since this is the only form that has resemblance to a falling shower.

But the supposition is not necessary. Nor is it necessary to suppose that water was applied to them at all. The thing itself is improbable, and the whole case is met by the simple supposition that the apostle means that they were initiated in this way into the religion of Moses, recognized his Divine mission, and under the cloud became his followers and subject to his laws. And if this interpretation is correct, then it follows that the word baptize does not of necessity mean to immerse.

And in the sea. This is another expression that goes to determine the sense of the word baptize. The sea referred to here is the Red Sea, and the event was the passage through that sea. The fact in the case was that the Lord caused a strong east wind to blow all night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided (Exodus 14:21), and the waters were a wall unto them on the right hand and on the left (Exodus 14:22).

From this whole narrative it is evident that they passed through the sea without being immersed in it. The waters were driven into high adjacent walls for the very purpose that they might pass between them dry and safe. There is the fullest proof that they were not submerged in the water.

Dr. Gill supposes that the water stood up above their heads and that "they seemed to be immersed in it." This might be true, but this is to give up the idea that the word baptize means always to immerse in water, since it is a fact, according to this supposition, that they were not thus immersed but only seemed to be.

And all that can be meant, therefore, is that they were in this manner initiated into the religion of Moses, convinced of his Divine mission, and brought under subjection to him as their leader, lawgiver, and guide. This passage is a very important one to prove that the word baptism does not necessarily mean entire immersion in water.

It is perfectly clear that neither the cloud nor the waters touched them. They went through the midst of the sea on dry ground. It remains only to be asked whether, if immersion was the only mode of baptism known in the New Testament, the apostle Paul would have used the word not only so as not necessarily to imply that, but as necessarily to mean something else?

And did all eat the same spiritual meat. That is, manna (Exodus 16:15, 35; Nehemiah 9:15, 20).

The word meat here is used in the old English sense, meaning food in general. They lived on manna.

The word spiritual here evidently denotes that which was given by the Spirit, or by God. It was the result of His miraculous gift, was not produced in the ordinary way, and was not the gross food on which people are usually supported.

It had an excellency and value because it was the immediate gift of God, and is thus called angel's food (Psalms 78:25). Josephus calls it "Divine and extraordinary food" (Antiquities iii.1).

In the language of the Scriptures, whatever is distinguished by excellence, is the immediate gift of God, and is unlike what is gross and of earthly origin, is called spiritual to denote its purity, value, and excellence. (1 Corinthians 3:1; 1 Corinthians 15:44, 46; Ephesians 1:3).

Paul's idea here is that all the Israelites were nourished and supported in this remarkable manner by food given directly by God, and that they all, therefore, had evidence of Divine protection and favour, and were all under His care.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink. The idea here is essentially the same as in the previous verse: that they had been highly favoured by God and enjoyed tokens of Divine care and guardianship. This was manifested in the miraculous supply of water in the desert, thus showing that they were under Divine protection and were objects of Divine favour.

There can be no doubt that by "spiritual drink" here the apostle refers to the water that was made to gush from the rock that was smitten by Moses (Exodus 17:6; Numbers 20:11). Why this is called "spiritual" has been a subject about which there has been much difference of opinion.

It cannot be because there was anything peculiar in the nature of the water, for it was evidently real water, suited to quench their thirst. There is no evidence, as many have supposed, that there was a reference in this to the drink used in the Lord's Supper. But it must mean that it was bestowed in a miraculous and supernatural manner, and the word "spiritual" must be used in the sense of supernatural, or that which is immediately given by God.

Spiritual blessings thus stand opposed to natural and temporal blessings, and the former denote those that are immediately given by God as an evidence of Divine favour. That the Jews used the word "spiritual" in this manner is evident from the writings of the Rabbis. Thus they called the manna "spiritual food" (Yade Mose in Shemor Rabba, fol. 109, 3), and their sacrifices they called "spiritual bread" (Tzeror Hammor, fol. 93,2).—Gill. Therefore, the drink referred to here was that bestowed in a supernatural manner and as a proof of Divine favour.

For they drank of that spiritual Rock. This refers to the waters that flowed from that rock. The Rock here is called "spiritual," not from anything peculiar in the nature of the rock, but because it was the source to them of supernatural mercies and thus became the emblem and demonstration of Divine favour, and of spiritual mercies, conferred on them by God.

That followed them. Margin: Went with (akolouyoushv). This evidently cannot mean that the rock itself literally followed them, any more than that they literally drank the rock, for one is as expressly affirmed, if it be taken literally, as the other. But just as when it is said they "drank of the rock," it must mean that they drank of the water that flowed from the rock, so when it is said that the "rock followed" or accompanied them, it must mean that the water that flowed from the rock accompanied them.

This figure of speech is common everywhere. Thus the Saviour said (1 Corinthians 11:25), "This cup is the new testament," that is, the wine in this cup represents my blood, etc.; and Paul says (1 Corinthians 11:25, 27), "Whoever shall drink this cup of the Lord unworthily," that is, the wine in the cup, etc., and, "as often as you drink this cup," etc., that is, the wine contained in the cup.

It would be absurd to suppose that the rock that was smitten by Moses literally followed them in the wilderness, and there is not the slightest evidence in the Old Testament that it did. Water was twice brought out of a rock to supply the needs of the children of Israel.

Once at Mount Horeb, as recorded in Exodus 17:6, in the wilderness of Sin, in the first year of their departure from Egypt. The second time water was brought from a rock around the time of the death of Miriam, at Kadesh, and probably in the fortieth year of their departure from Egypt (Numbers 20:1). It was to the former of these occasions that the apostle evidently refers. In regard to this, we may observe:

1. That a large quantity of water must have been provided to supply the needs of more than two million people.
2. It is expressly stated (Deuteronomy 9:21) that the brook (the Hebrew word for which means stream, torrent, or river—see Numbers 34:5; Joshua 15:4, 47; 1 Kings 8:65; 2 Kings 24:7) descended out of the mount, and was evidently a stream of considerable size.
3. Mount Horeb was higher than the adjacent country, and the water that thus gushed from the rock, instead of collecting into a pool and becoming stagnant, would flow off in the direction of the sea.
4. The sea to which it would naturally flow would be the Red Sea, in the direction of the eastern or Elanitic branch of that sea.
5. The Israelites would doubtless, in their journeys, be influenced by the natural direction of the water, or would not wander far from it, as it was daily necessary to supply their needs.
6. At the end of thirty-seven years, we find the Israelites at Ezion-geber, a seaport on the eastern branch of the Red Sea, where the waters probably flowed into the sea (Numbers 33:36). In the fortieth year of their departure from Egypt, they left this place to go into Canaan by the country of Edom and were immediately in distress again from a lack of water.

It is thus probable that the water from the rock continued to flow, and that it constituted a stream or river; that it was near their camp all the time until they came to Ezion-geber; and that thus, together with the daily supply of manna, it was a proof of the protection of God and an emblem of their dependence.

If it is said that there is now no such stream to be found there, it is to be observed that it is represented as miraculous, and that it would be just as reasonable to look for the daily descent of manna there in quantities sufficient to supply more than two million men, as to expect to find the gushing and running river of water.

The only question is whether God can work a miracle and whether there is evidence that he has done it. This is not the place to examine that question. But the evidence is as strong that he wrought this miracle as that he gave the manna, and neither of them is inconsistent with the power, the wisdom, or the benevolence of God.

And that Rock was Christ. This cannot be intended to be understood literally, for it was not literally true. The rock from which the water flowed was evidently an ordinary rock, a part of Mount Horeb; and all that this can mean is that the rock, with the stream of water thus gushing from it, was a representation of the Messiah.

The word was is thus often used to denote similarity or representation and is not to be taken literally. Thus, in the institution of the Lord's Supper, the Saviour says of the bread, "This is my body," that is, it represents my body. Thus also of the cup, "This cup is the new testament in my blood," that is, it represents my blood (1 Corinthians 11:24–25).

Thus the gushing fountain of water might be regarded as a representation of the Messiah and of the blessings that result from him. The apostle does not say that the Israelites knew that this was designed to be a representation of the Messiah, and of the blessings that flow from him, though there is nothing improbable in the supposition that they so understood and regarded it, since all their institutions were probably regarded as typical.

But he evidently does mean to say that the rock was a vivid and affecting representation of the Messiah; that the Jews did partake of the mercies that flow from him; and that even in the desert they were under his care and had in fact among them a vivid representation of him, in some sense corresponding with the emblematic representation of the same favours that the Corinthian and other Christians had in the Lord's Supper. This representation of the Messiah, perhaps, was understood by Paul to consist in the following things:

1. Christians, like the children of Israel, are passing through the world as pilgrims, and to them that world is a wilderness—a desert.
2. They need continued supplies, as the Israelites did, in their journey. The world, like that wilderness, does not meet their necessities or supply their needs.
3. That rock was a striking representation of the fullness of the Messiah, of the abundant grace that he imparts to his people.
4. It was an illustration of their continued and constant dependence on him for the daily supply of their needs.

It should be observed that many expositors understand this literally. Bloomfield translates it, "And they were supplied with drink from the spiritual Rock which followed them, even Christ." So Rosenmuller, Calvin, Glass, etc.

In defence of this interpretation, it is said that the Messiah is often called "a rock" in the Scriptures; that the Jews believed that the "angel of JEHOVAH" who attended them (Exodus 3:2 and other places) was the Messiah; and that the design of the apostle was to show that this attending Rock, the Messiah, was the source of all their blessings, and particularly of the water that gushed from the rock.

But the interpretation suggested above seems to me to be most natural. The design of the apostle is apparent: It is to show to the Corinthians, who relied so much on their privileges and felt themselves so secure, that the Jews had the very same privileges.

They had the highest tokens of Divine favour and protection, were under the guidance and grace of God, and were constantly partakers of that which foreshadowed or typified the Messiah. This was in a manner as real, and in a form as much fitted to maintain the remembrance of their dependence, as even the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper.

Regarding the phrase But with many of them, and so on, this refers to their conduct. They rebelled and sinned, and were destroyed. The apostle's purpose here is to remind them that although they enjoyed so many privileges, they were still destroyed. Thus, he admonishes the Corinthians that their privileges did not constitute an absolute security from danger, and that they should be cautious against the indulgence of sin.

The phrase translated here as "with many" (Greek: en tois pleiosin) should have been translated "with most of them." Literally, it means "with the many," signifying that God was not well pleased with the greater part of them; that is, He was pleased with only a few of them.

The statement Was not well pleased means He was offended by their ingratitude and rebellion.

Concerning the words, For they were overthrown, and so on: this means they were destroyed by pestilence, by wars, or died by natural and common diseases, so that they did not reach the land of Canaan. Only two men of that generation, Caleb and Joshua, were permitted to enter the land of promise (Numbers 14:29–30).

It should be noted: 'many' in this passage means 'most'; 'overthrown' means 'destroyed'. Their destruction occurred in the wilderness, as referenced in Numbers 14:29-35; Numbers 26:64–65; Hebrews 3:17; and Jude 1:5.