John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 10

What he had previously taught by two illustrations, he now confirms by examples. The Corinthians grew arrogant and gloried, as if they had completed their service, or at least had finished their course, when they had barely left the starting point. He suppresses this empty boasting and confidence in this manner: “As I see that you are quietly taking your ease at the very outset of your course, I would not have you ignorant of what happened to the people of Israel as a consequence of this, so that their example may arouse you.”

However, when examples are brought forward, any point of difference can destroy the force of the comparison. Therefore, Paul first states that there is no such difference between us and the Israelites as to make our condition different from theirs. Intending to threaten the Corinthians with the same vengeance that had come upon the Israelites, he begins in this way: “Beware of glorying in any peculiar privilege, as if you were held in higher esteem than they were in the sight of God.”

For they were favored with the same benefits that we enjoy today; there was a Church of God among them, just as there is among us today. They had the same sacraments to be tokens for them of the grace of God; but when they abused their privileges, they did not escape the judgment of God. Be afraid, therefore, for the same thing is hanging over you. Jude makes use of the same argument in his Epistle (Jude 1:5).

1. All were under the cloud. The Apostle’s aim is to show that the Israelites were just as much the people of God as we are, so that we may know that we will not escape unpunished the hand of God, which punished them with such severity. For the main point is this: “If God did not spare them, neither will He spare you, for your condition is similar.”

He proves that similarity by this: they had been honored with the same tokens of God’s grace, for the sacraments are badges by which the Church of God is distinguished. He first discusses baptism, teaching that the cloud—which protected the Israelites in the desert from the sun's heat and directed their course—and also their passage through the sea, were like a baptism for them. He also says that in the manna and the water flowing from the rock, there was a sacrament that corresponded to the sacred Supper.

They were, he says, baptized in Moses, that is, under the ministry or guidance of Moses. For I take the particle εἰς to be used here instead of ἐν, consistent with the common usage of Scripture. This is because we are certainly baptized in the name of Christ, and not of any mere man, as Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 1:13, and that for two reasons.

These are, first, because by baptism we are initiated into the doctrine of Christ alone; and, secondly, because His name alone is invoked, since baptism is founded on His influence alone. They were, therefore, baptized in Moses—that is, under his guidance or ministry, as has already been stated. How? In the cloud and in the sea.

Someone will say, “Then they were baptized twice.” I answer that two signs are mentioned, yet they constitute but one baptism, corresponding to our baptism.

Here, however, a more difficult question arises. For it is certain that the advantage of those gifts Paul mentions was temporary. The cloud protected them from the sun's heat and showed them the way; these are external advantages of the present life. Similarly, their passage through the sea had this effect: they escaped Pharaoh’s cruelty and imminent danger of death. The advantage of our baptism, on the other hand, is spiritual.

Why then does Paul turn earthly benefits into sacraments and seek to find some spiritual mystery in them? I answer that Paul had good reason to seek something more in miracles of this nature than the mere external advantage for the body. For, though God designed to promote His people’s advantage regarding the present life, His main intention was to declare and manifest Himself to be their God; and under that, eternal salvation is included.

The cloud is, in various instances, called the symbol of His presence. Therefore, since He declared by means of it that He was present with them as His special and chosen people, there can be no doubt that, in addition to an earthly advantage, they also had in it a token of spiritual life.

Thus its use was twofold, as was the use of the passage through the sea. A way was opened for them through the middle of the sea so that they might escape from Pharaoh's hand. But to what was this due, if not to the fact that the Lord, having taken them under His guardianship and protection, was determined to defend them by every means? From this, they concluded that they were the objects of God’s care and that He was in charge of their salvation.

Thus, too, the Passover, which was instituted to celebrate the remembrance of their deliverance, was nonetheless, at the same time, a sacrament of Christ. How so? Because God, under a temporary benefit, had manifested Himself as a Savior. Anyone who attentively considers these things will find no absurdity in Paul’s words. Indeed, he will perceive a most striking correspondence in both the spiritual substance and the visible sign between the baptism of the Jews and ours.

However, it is again objected that we do not find a word of all this. I admit this, but there is no doubt that God by His Spirit supplied the lack of outward preaching, as we can see in the example of the bronze serpent. This serpent was, as Christ Himself testifies, a spiritual sacrament (John 3:14), and yet not a word about this has come down to us. But the Lord revealed the secret—which would otherwise have remained hidden—to believers of that age, in the manner He saw fit.

The same spiritual meat. He now mentions the other sacrament, which corresponds to the Lord’s Holy Supper. “The manna,” he says, “and the water that flowed from the rock, served not merely for the food of the body, but also for the spiritual nourishment of souls.” It is true that both were means of sustenance for the body, but this does not prevent them from also serving another purpose.

Therefore, while the Lord relieved the necessities of the body, He, at the same time, provided for the everlasting welfare of souls. These two things would be easily reconciled, if there were not a difficulty presented in Christ’s words (John 6:31), where He makes the manna the perishable food for the stomach, which He contrasts with the true food of the soul.

That statement seems to differ widely from what Paul says here. This difficulty, too, is easily resolved. It is the way of Scripture, when discussing sacraments or other things, sometimes to speak according to the hearers' capacity; and in that case, it refers not to the nature of the thing itself, but to the mistaken idea of the hearers.

Thus, Paul does not always speak of circumcision in the same way. When he considers God's appointment in it, he says that it was a seal of the righteousness of the faith (Romans 4:11). But when he is disputing with those who gloried in an outward and mere sign, and placed a mistaken confidence of salvation in it, he says that it is a token of condemnation, because by it men bind themselves to keep the whole law (Galatians 5:2–3). For he addresses merely the opinion that the false apostles had of it, because he is contending not against God's pure institution, but against their mistaken view.

In this way, as the carnal multitude preferred Moses to Christ because he had fed the people in the desert for forty years and looked for nothing in the manna but food for the stomach (as indeed they sought nothing else), Christ, in His reply, does not explain what was meant by the manna. Instead, passing over everything else, He adapts His discourse to the idea held by His hearers.

“Moses is held by you in the highest esteem, and even in admiration, as a most eminent Prophet because he filled the stomachs of your fathers in the desert. For this one thing you object against me: I am accounted as nothing by you because I do not supply you with food for the stomach. But if you consider perishable food so important, what ought you to think of the life-giving bread with which souls are nourished for eternal life?”

We see then that the Lord speaks there not according to the nature of the thing, but rather according to the understanding of His hearers. Paul, on the other hand, looks here not to God's ordinance, but to its abuse by the wicked.

Furthermore, when he says that the fathers ate the same spiritual meat, he shows, first, what is the power and efficacy of the Sacraments, and, secondly, he declares that the ancient Sacraments of the Law had the same power as ours have today. For, if the manna was spiritual food, it follows that it is not mere emblems that are presented to us in the Sacraments, but that the thing represented is at the same time truly given, for God is not a deceiver who feeds us with empty illusions.

A sign, it is true, is a sign and retains its essence. But just as Papists play a ridiculous role, dreaming of transformations (I know not of what kind), so we must not separate the reality from the emblem that God has joined. Papists confuse the reality and the sign; profane men, such as Schwenckfeld and others like him, separate the signs from the realities. Let us maintain a middle course. In other words, let us observe the connection appointed by the Lord, but still keep them distinct, so that we do not mistakenly transfer to the one what belongs to the other.

It remains for us to speak of the second point: the resemblance between the ancient signs and our signs. It is a well-known dogma of the Schoolmen that the Sacraments of the ancient law were emblems of grace, but ours confer it. This passage is admirably suited to refute that error, for it shows that the reality of the Sacrament was presented to the ancient people of God just as much as to us. It is therefore a baseless fancy of the Sorbonnists that the holy fathers under the law had the signs without the reality.

I grant, indeed, that the efficacy of the signs is supplied to us more clearly and more abundantly since the time of Christ’s manifestation in the flesh than it was possessed by the fathers. Thus, there is a difference between us and them only in degree, or (as they commonly say) of “more and less,” for we receive more fully what they received in a smaller measure. It is not as if they had mere emblems, while we enjoy the reality.

Some explain it to mean that they ate the same meat together among themselves, and do not want us to understand that there is a comparison between us and them. But these interpreters do not consider Paul’s aim. For what does he mean to say here, if not that the ancient people of God were honored with the same benefits as us, and were partakers of the same sacraments, so that we might not, by trusting in any special privilege, imagine that we would be exempt from the punishment they endured?

At the same time, I would not be prepared to argue the point with anyone; I merely state my own opinion. Meanwhile, I am well aware of the plausible reasoning advanced by those who adopt the opposite interpretation: that it best suits the illustration used immediately before—that all the Israelites had the same racecourse marked out for them, all started from the same point, all entered upon the same course, all were partakers of the same hope, but many were excluded from the reward.

However, when I consider everything attentively, I am not persuaded by these considerations to give up my opinion. For the Apostle had good reason to mention only two sacraments, and, more particularly, baptism. For what purpose was this, if not to contrast them with us?

Undoubtedly, if he had restricted his comparison to the body of that people, he would rather have brought forward circumcision and other sacraments that were better known and more prominent. But instead of this, he chose those that were more obscure, because they served better as a contrast between us and them. Nor would the application that he adds be otherwise so suitable: “All things that happened to them are examples to us, as we see in them the judgments of God that are hanging over us if we involve ourselves in the same sins.”

That rock was Christ. Some absurdly distort these words of Paul, as if he had said that Christ was the spiritual rock, and as if he were not speaking of that rock which was a visible sign, for we see that he is expressly discussing outward signs. The objection they make—that the rock is spoken of as spiritual—is frivolous, since that epithet is applied to it simply so that we may know it was a token of a spiritual mystery.

Meanwhile, there is no doubt he compares our sacraments with the ancient ones. Their second objection is more foolish and more childish: “How could a rock,” they say, “that stood firm in its place, follow the Israelites?”—as if it were not abundantly clear that the word rock means the stream of water, which continuously accompanied the people.

For Paul extols the grace of God because he commanded the water that was drawn from the rock to flow wherever the people journeyed, as if the rock itself had followed them. Now if Paul’s meaning were that Christ is the spiritual foundation of the Church, why would he have used the past tense? It is abundantly clear that something is expressed here that was peculiar to the fathers. Away, then, with that foolish notion by which contentious men would rather show their impudence than admit that they are sacramental forms of expression!

I have, however, already stated that the reality of the things signified was exhibited in connection with the ancient sacraments. As, therefore, they were emblems of Christ, it follows that Christ was connected with them—not locally, nor by a natural or substantial union, but sacramentally. On this principle the Apostle says that the rock was Christ, for nothing is more common than metonymy in speaking of sacraments. The name of the thing, therefore, is transferred here to the sign—not as if it were strictly applicable, but figuratively, because of that connection which I have mentioned. I touch upon this, however, more briefly, because it will be discussed more extensively when we come to the 11th Chapter.

There remains another question. “Since we now in the Supper eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, how could the Jews partake of the same spiritual meat and drink when there was not yet any flesh of Christ that they could eat?” I answer that though his flesh did not yet exist, it was, nevertheless, food for them.

Nor is this an empty or sophistical subtlety, for their salvation depended on the benefit of his death and resurrection. Hence, they needed to receive the flesh and blood of Christ, so that they might participate in the benefit of redemption. This reception of it was the secret work of the Holy Spirit, who worked in them in such a manner that Christ’s flesh, though not yet created, was made efficacious in them.

He means, however, that they ate in their own way, which was different from ours. This is what I have previously stated: Christ is now presented to us more fully, according to the measure of the revelation. For, today, the eating is substantial, which it could not have been then—that is, Christ feeds us with his flesh, which has been sacrificed for us and appointed as our food, and from this we derive life.

But many of them. We now have the reason why the Apostle stated these things previously—so that we might not claim for ourselves any dignity or excellence above them, but might walk in humility and fear, for only in this way will we ensure that we have not been favored in vain with the light of truth and with such an abundance of gracious benefits. “God,” he says, “had chosen them all as his people, but many of them fell from grace. Therefore, let us take heed, lest the same thing should happen to us, being admonished by so many examples, for God will not allow that to go unpunished in us which he punished so severely in them.”

Again, the objection is raised: “If it is true that hypocrites and wicked persons in that age ate spiritual meat, do unbelievers in the present day partake of the reality in the sacraments?” Some, afraid for fear that the unbelief of men should seem to diminish the truth of God, teach that the reality is received by the wicked along with the sign. This fear, however, is unnecessary, for the Lord offers, it is true, to the worthy and to the unworthy what he represents, but not all are capable of receiving it. In the meantime, the sacrament does not change its nature, nor does it lose anything of its efficacy. Thus the manna, in relation to God, was spiritual meat even to unbelievers, but because the mouth of unbelievers was only carnal, they did not eat what was given to them. However, I reserve the fuller discussion of this question for the 11th Chapter.

For they were overthrown. Proof is here provided, by citing evidence, that they did not please God—since he exercised his wrath upon them severely and took vengeance on their ingratitude. Some understand this as referring to the whole of the people who died in the desert, with the exception of only two—Caleb and Joshua (Numbers 14:29). I understand him, however, as referring merely to those whom he immediately afterwards mentions in different groups.

Now these things were types to us. He warns us in still more explicit terms that we must consider the punishment that was inflicted upon them, so that they serve as a lesson to us, that we may not provoke the anger of God as they did. “God,” he says, “in punishing them has presented to us, as in a picture, His severity, so that, instructed by their example, we may learn to fear.”

Concerning the term type, I will speak shortly. For now, I want my readers to know that it is not without careful consideration that I have given a different rendering from that of the old translation and of Erasmus, because they obscure Paul’s meaning, or at least they do not make sufficiently clear this idea—that God has, through that people, presented a picture for our instruction.

That we might not lust after evil things. He now lists particular instances, or specific examples, so that he may use this opportunity to reprove some vices about which the Corinthians needed to be admonished. I believe that the history referred to here is what is recorded in Numbers 11:4 and following, though others refer it to what is recorded in Numbers 26:64.

The people, after being fed with manna for some time, eventually took a dislike to it and began to desire other kinds of food, which they had been accustomed to eat in Egypt. They sinned in two ways: they despised the special gift of God, and they eagerly longed for a variety of meats and delicacies, contrary to the will of God. The Lord, provoked by this lawless appetite, inflicted a severe blow upon the people. Hence the place was called the graves of lust, because there they buried those whom the Lord had smitten (Numbers 11:34).

The Lord, by this example, testified how much He hates those lusts that arise from a dislike of His gifts and from our lawless appetite, for whatever goes beyond the measure that God has prescribed is rightly considered evil and unlawful.

Neither be you idolaters. He touches upon the history recorded in Exodus 32:7 and following. For when Moses made a longer stay upon the mountain than the unseemly fickleness of the people could endure, Aaron was constrained to make a calf and set it up as an object of worship. Not that the people wished to change their God, but rather to have some visible token of God’s presence, in accordance with their carnal understanding. God, in punishing this idolatry at that time with the greatest severity, showed by that example how much he abhors idolatry.

As it is written, The people sat down. This passage is rightly interpreted by few, for they understand intemperance among the people to have been the occasion of wantonness, in accordance with the common proverb, “Dancing comes after a full diet.” But Moses speaks of a sacred feast, or in other words, what they celebrated in honor of the idol.

Hence feasting and play were two appendages of idolatry. For it was customary, both among the people of Israel and among the devotees of superstition, to have a feast in connection with a sacrifice as a part of divine worship, at which no profane or unclean persons were allowed to be present. The Gentiles, in addition to this, appointed sacred games in honor of their idols, in conformity with which the Israelites undoubtedly on that occasion worshipped their calf, for such is the presumption of the human mind, that it ascribes to God whatever pleases itself. Hence the Gentiles have fallen into such a depth of infatuation as to believe that their gods are delighted with the basest spectacles, immodest dances, impurity of speech, and every kind of obscenity. Hence, in imitation of them, the Israelite people, having observed their sacred banquet, rose up to celebrate the games, so that nothing might be lacking in honor of the idol. This is the true and simple meaning.

But here it is asked why the Apostle mentions the feast and the games rather than adoration, for this is the chief thing in idolatry, while the other two things were merely appendages. The reason is that he selected what best suited the case of the Corinthians. For it is not likely that they frequented the assemblies of the wicked for the purpose of prostrating themselves before the idols, but rather partook of their feasts, held in honor of their deities, and did not keep at a distance from those base ceremonies, which were tokens of idolatry. It is not, therefore, without good reason that the Apostle declares that their particular form of offense is expressly condemned by God. He intimates, in short, that no part of idolatry can be touched without contracting pollution, and that those who defile themselves with the outward tokens of idolatry will not escape punishment from the hand of God.