Chapter 10
This seems to be another sharp break in the narrative. A new "Roman Numeral" in the outline of the book. (2021 - But in the MSB, it is not so.)
The MSB introductory note to these first verses says that Paul is using the 40 years in the wilderness as an example of the gross misuse of freedom and confidence. "Free" of slavery, the Israelites could do whatever they wanted - they had had no previous experience of freedom - and needed guidance, focus, and above all the discipline of the law God gave them. Freedom is not license, but the Israelites, as the Corinthians in this church, are using it as such. The freedom the Israelites exercised ended up keeping them out of Canaan - it precluded the blessings God wanted to give them. So freedom is to be exercised to push back boundaries, but exercised within the boundaries of God's word. At least, this is the case if it is to bring blessing, and that is stated here in plain terms. Further, Paul tells us that he is using Israel as a type - an example. There aren't all that many places where this is stated...and so many apply types where none exists - in my opinion.
2023 - Here is the verse: 6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. [1Co 10:6 ESV]. The Greek word translated as "examples" is "typos", pronounced "too-pose". It is used 16 times in the NT. In BLB outline of Biblical usage, the very last usage is what we think of as a "type". It's most basic meaning is a die used to stamp and imprint into something. Obviously, that is not what it means in this verse. It can also mean 'form" as in "form letter", as here: 25 And he wrote a letter having this form: [Act 23:25 NASB95]. It is a standard way of writing something. A business letter, a personal letter, and so on. That kind of thing. The fourth thing it can be is an example. Here is how that usage is spelled out in BLB:
an example
in the technical sense, the pattern in conformity to which a thing must be made
in an ethical sense, a dissuasive example, a pattern of warning
of ruinous events which serve as admonitions or warnings to others
an example to be imitated
of men worthy of imitation
in a doctrinal sense
of a type i.e. a person or thing prefiguring a future (Messianic) person or thing
So as we look at this, we could easily, and I think accurately, settle on that first numeral 3, A dissuasive example. That is surely why Paul is talking about Israel in the desert after Egypt. Not as a TYPE, but as a dissuasive example. So we see that there is a lot of room for translation of this word. I am not sure that confining its use as "type" to Messianic prefiguring only is correct, but perhaps it is so. All 16 uses of typos are listed of course. Here is a verse where typos is translated according to that very last definition: 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [Rom 5:14 ESV]. "Type" is used here, and we have corroboration of this as Paul gets very explicit in his comparison of Adam and Christ. We wouldn't translate typos in this verse as type: 17 Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. [Phl 3:17 ESV]. So it does look more and more like it means "type, in a doctrinal sense, only when a Messianic prefiguring is in view. This verse: 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." [Heb 8:5 ESV]. Here, instead of translating typos as pattern, I can see interpreting it as type. And this gets us to "things" in person or thing in that last example above. J. Sidlow Baxter has an awesome discussion about how each item in the tent of meeting prefigured Christ and his work in some way. But that means that in only two places out of 16, the correct translation might be type. Joshua is NOT a type of Christ, though some of the characteristics Joshua showed can be compared to Christ. Is Abraham ever called a type of Christ? Not that I know about. Moses? David? No, I don't think so. We all ought to have a character that more and more approaches the character of Jesus Christ. But we are NOT ALL TYPES of Christ when observed by the next generation. Overusing the concept of "type", and applying it when the Bible does not apply it, can result in some very false teachings.
Paul reminds them about Moses. These are Corinthians. Perhaps some were Jews, but I'm betting a huge majority were Gentiles. So what is this point about Moses? Here is the whole passage:
1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. [1Co 10:1-6 ESV]. (2023 - Again, Moses is not the example. The failures of the Israelites are the examples. Bad examples. "Typos" here should NOT be translated type, nor should it be applied to Moses at all.
2021 - I suspect that the general history of Israel was pretty well known in the world. They were an old nation, and had much influence in the world. Many would be aware of it. Further, Paul is speaking of his own heritage, and inside the church in Corinth, in studying the scriptures, the church there would have learned a lot about Israel's history. Ahh...so now, Paul is speaking to the church as a whole, not limiting himself to individuals.
Our fathers in the Spiritual sense. God's people, chosen out for his protection and favor. As are the saved today. Vs 2 says all were baptized into Moses, vs 5 says even so, God was displeased with most of them, and did away with them. Will we try and make the argument that these baptized into Moses were all saved by that fact? Or should we argue instead that though baptized into Moses, they lost their standing by their later actions? Or that their later actions proved that the physical baptism in the cloud and the sea did not correct the problems they still had on the inside? 2023 - I think we have a really good argument from this verse that it takes MORE THAN baptism to save you. I do not think we have an argument that baptism is unnecessary in any sense. That is just not what Paul is trying to address.
2023 - This verse: 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. [1Co 10:4 ESV]. The Rock followed them. The Rock came later. There is nothing here that makes the rock that Moses struck a type for Christ, or anything even remotely like that. This is error. What is meant is that Christ is the only way, and was so even in the wilderness, after the Law, after the Ark, under the priestly system, Christ was the ONLY way, though he was in the future.
2023 - Another thought on this verse...Perhaps this is the difference in eating part of animals sacrificed to God but never ever drinking the blood. The spiritual drink FOLLOWED them, it was not yet there, and so the animal blood was unqualified as spiritual drink. But once Jesus rose, the drink, the wine of the Lord's supper, the drink offering that went with the perfect sacrifice, could be consumed. The wine that Jesus drank at the last supper was the Passover wine and yet he did not drink the last cup. Is the wine of the Lord's Supper that last cup, in remembrance of that night, and of why the blood of the New Covenant ought to be consumed instead of sprinkled? Because THE life is in THE blood. The life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it to you upon the altar as an atonement for your sins. Under the Law, blood could only atone if it was offered on the altar. It was ONLY for God But now, in Christ's blood, atonement is incorporated because it is what Christ did that is atonement, and no longer blood. And look at this!!! 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? [1Co 10:16 ESV]. There it is! The drink is participatory in both blood and body! That is why we drink it now. It is the life of Christ - not just symbolized but in fact IN the blood - that makes us "in him", part of him, visible to God as him! And then 17 says the bread makes us all one body, each a piece of the whole church. As the flesh of the animals sacrificed and then eaten made all Israel one body...but they COULD NOT YET be IN CHRIST because Christ was NOT YET sacrificed.
He says then that Christ is still their Rock, as much as he is now ours. Christ was available to them as savior. But most of them failed to recognize and have faith in the Rock. They are an example for us. Is the Greek work in fact "type"? (2023 - It IS the word "typos" in Greek, but is used as definition 3 above - a DISSUASIVE example, NOT as a type!
MSB says this passage goes with the athletic discipline point.. Israel leaving Egypt is an example of freedom without discipline or self-control.
MSB says of vs 2 that they were immersed not in water but into Moses, indicating their oneness and solidarity with him as leader - 2023 and as representative of the Law. Yet all but two died in the wilderness. Even Moses and Aaron were disqualified from entering.
2021 - And I'm pretty sure Moses went to heaven, though he was disqualified from receiving the blessings intended. So perhaps we should see even those who fell in the desert as saved, but chastened because of their lack of discipline, obedience, and service. And Paul is saying that the way the Corinthian church is headed is very comparable to what Israel did so long ago. They are using freedom as license in four areas - four areas very specifically and unarguably prohibited by God's word: Idolatry, sexual immorality, testing Christ, and grumbling. These four problems were also rampant in THE CHURCH at Corinth, and were going to keep that church from the blessings intended for it.
Paul goes on to say that we are not to "desire evil" as they did. So not saved people. Saved may sin, but not desire evil. They indulged in all sorts of license - sexual sin, idolatry, testing God, and whining. These things are not disciplined, these do not make one better able to win the race. Then Paul tells the Corinthians to likewise not practice these undisciplined actions, which hinder them in the race.
This verse:
12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. [1Co 10:12 ESV]
MSB says almost nothing here, but gives many scripture references described as examples of overconfidence. This is such an important verse in connection with perseverance of the saints. It surely deserves more amplification than MSB gives it here.
Too much...My mind is swamped.
Then this verse:
13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. [1Co 10:13 ESV] Addressed to individuals, it would seem, but for the church as a whole. Everyone needed to know this. Could we reasonably read this as being addressed to the body, rather than to individuals? No...This is about a person, not about a church. It is about the church only in that the church is made up of a body of believers. Yes, 14 makes it clear that Paul is speaking to individual believers now. The actions and discipline of individuals make up the behavior of the church. Just as bad kings and majority corruption led to Israel's condemnation - though some stayed faithful - individual behavior is the basis for judgement of a local church also. I think that is reasonable to say here...
Vss 14-22 seem to me, after what came before, as a complete departure from the narrative. I don't see how you get from Israelite sins to the Lord's supper?
2023 - But see next. Perhaps these verses go with what comes after, not with what went before.
Paul now, vs 19, turns to food offered to idols. Before, he seemed to say just be careful about weaker brothers, but now he says eating food offered to idols is to become a participant with demons, just as eating and drinking the Lord's supper is to participate with Christ. He uses the phrase "you cannot".
2021-2, These verses:
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? [1Co 10:21-22 ESV]. I do not think this verse is about Halloween. I think the Corinthians were living in a place that had their church, but temples to Diana, and who knows what all ancient idols and gods. They could probably go from temple to temple all day eating and drinking sacrificed animals and "blessed" wine, and then end up at the end of the day in the church at Corinth. Paul went to the trouble beforehand to tell them that the pagan temple offerings were just food and drink. There was nothing inherently wrong with them. What I think he is talking about now is polytheism. Perhaps a lot of the Corinthians were covering all their bases by worshiping not only God but other gods in other temples. Perhaps they themselves were sacrificing to those gods. In this case, they would be eating and drinking to the Lord AND to demons. Paul is proscribing this kind of attitude.
So. If I know the skeletons and monsters and masks and jack-o-lanterns don't actually mean anything, are not gods in any sense, I don't pray to them or expect help from them, and I don't offer expectant sacrifices to them, then neither they, nor any Halloween celebration I take part in "means anything". It is just for fun. It is no more "evil" to celebrate Halloween than it is to celebrate Washington's birthday.
Possible FB post - an extra - on Halloween.
2022 - Well...While I agree with the above, I don't think that's the point Paul was trying to make. This chapter (1 Co 10) is about the undisciplined exercise of freedom to our own detriment. Athletes can smoke all day and drink all night...but they won't end up being very good athletes. The Israelites left Egypt - where every activity was regulated - and went out into the desert, leaving their taskmasters behind and their oppressive life-draining work behind. God gave them the Law so that they could live well and receive no end of blessings. But the freedom got to their heads, and they used it instead to do all the crazy things the Egyptians had done. They "incorporated" their old flesh with their new - in fact chose it in preference to the new. They became undisciplined and worshiped idols, indulged themselves sexually, and so on. That's what churches, and church people, have an opportunity to do also. A church can embrace homosexuality. Those in the church truly saved stay saved, and perhaps a ton of them are. But they have embraced what the Law disallows, they have pushed away discipline in favor of unbridled freedom. It can happen in the church. Blessings go away. Protection goes away. Works of straw will be burned up and those who do them will suffer loss.
2023 - Are those who reach out to LGBTQ by making them PART of the church without requiring them to repent of what is clearly sin building straw houses on the chief cornerstone? Wow. I do like that as an example of intense work in the name of the Lord for which no credit will be given. Is that what is meant by works that are burned up? Keep going...This means saved people can get this wrong, spend a lifetime with it as their "cause", their "mission", their "calling", and end up saved, but scarred by the fire because they so missed the point? My goodness what a thought this morning! The paragraph below also goes with it.
We don't have a Law, but we have a ton of information about what is considered disciplined, race-winning behavior and what is dissipation and dilution. Even Moses was denied the promised land for his lapse of discipline. God still sent the water, but look what it cost Moses and so many others that day. We must be disciplined ourselves, we must take the message to anyone and everyone who will listen to it, but the church must be about embracing discipline, not about tolerating sin, excess, or license in the name of freedom.
Possible FB post...either vs 6 or 22. There are a couple other paragraphs under 1Co 10 in the notes that ought to be included in this post. It needs to be shortened...or made into separate posts. One about how we ought to act. Another about how churches are to grow.
2022 - This is the first time I have really understood the athlete reference, and now that I see it, I see how instructive it really is. And it ends with this verse:
23 "All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. [1Co 10:23 ESV]. I can smoke all the cigarettes I want, but that's not how I run faster and further.
I think...I don't know but I think...there is still a line though. I don't think we can cross the line from unsaved to saved with the intention of retaining our side chick, or homosexuality, or racism. It may take time to overcome our sins, but there must be repentance, and seeking for the more disciplined, more acceptable way.
Then in 23 he says we can do anything we want, but that doesn't mean we should. We most certainly shouldn't exercise freedom in Christ in this way. Yes...he's going down a completely different track as I read it. What to buy in the meat market? Taking care of your brother in what you do...He's still talking about freedom, and exercising freedom but within limits - with discipline. That ties it together. So...he has shown what can go wrong, he's shown the cost of undisciplined freedom using old Israel as his example. The behavior of the majority kept the promises from them all - more or less. So individual behavior is important. Then in about 13, he moves to application of the example. Here is how the Corinthians can apply discipline to the many temptations that are in front of them. By keeping the good of their brothers firmly in mind. By doing all to glorify God and not to celebrate our own freedom.
Look at the last three verses - which tie it ALL right back to the "all things to all people" introduction:
31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. [1Co 10:31-33 ESV]
Don't expect to win the lost by offending them in your personal behavior. We are talking about individuals, as we did to start with. Don't "pridefully" eat a ham sandwich with your Jewish friends to show off your freedom! Have some discipline. Respect their tradition, since it neither helps nor hinders you in your freedom, but respect may allow you to win some. This is not and was never about modifying church services to get people in the doors! It is NOT.
2021-2, It should be emphasized that here again we are talking about how we, as individuals, Christians, and church members ought to behave. This is not instructional as to the behavior, policy, or practice of the church as a whole. The church doesn't eat or drink, the members of the church do those things. If we have lunch with a non-Christian, and there is a chance we might win them, then "when in Rome" applies, up to the point where we cross the line from freedom to license. Can you have a glass of wine if this person you're with also has one? If you are a mature enough Christian - and only you can answer that question - then yes - UNLESS it hurts your witness with them because they are convinced that real Christians do not drink! If the purpose is to "be like him" so that you "might win him", you can have wine. But if you're attitude is "he's doing it so it's ok for me", well then you missed the boat.