"That We Might Not Crave Evil"
|
||
|
Abstract Summary Conclusion AbstractThe separate studies of Wayne Meeks and Lawrence Wills have brought the form, structure, and function of 1 Cor. 10.1-13 to the forefront of interest on this text and provide an excellent base for reexamination. Meeks's view that the pericope is an exposition of Exod. 32.6 is challenged and modified. The pericope is found here to be a midrashic exposition of Numbers 11 in the tradition of Psalms 78 and 106, using Exod. 32.6 as an exegetical device to "open up" Numbers 11. Furthermore, in its context, 10.1-13 is a focused argument against Corinthian willfulness (craving) to participate in idolatrous practices, even at the expense of others. The pericope functions in context according to its central structure and argument and is not somehow bent unnaturally into service. Even so, it is a tightly argued, self-contained unit, and may have been originally pre-1 Corinthians or even pre-Christian. SummaryIt is particularly interesting to notice the flow of the midrashic argument in 1 Cor 10:1-11. Verses 1-5 give a confessional summary of God's blessings in the wilderness (in the tradition of Psalms 78/106) and ends with God's displeasure from Numbers 14:16, "God scattered them in the desert." This in turn calls up one such text where God scattered them in the desert, Numbers 11. Thus, in 1 Cor 10:6-11—itself a well defined block by means of an inclusio and a chiastic arrangement of triplets—Numbers 11 becomes the main text of exposition, not only being strongly alluded to in both vv. 6 and 10, but also being midrashically unfolded by Exod 32:6 which is directly quoted. Exodus 32:6 is a secondary text, itself midrashically derived from Numbers 11 by way of gezerah shawah on kaqi/zein and a)nasth=nai. By way of the phrase, e)ka/qisen o( lao\j fageiÍn kaiě pieiÍn, Exod 32:6 is used to open up the phrase e)piqumhta\j kakw=n of Numbers 11 by walking backwards through the book of Numbers to find food texts in which God had scattered the people in the desert. Three texts are selected: Num 25:1 (harlotry); 21:4-7 (testing); and 11:1 (grumbling). Thus, the exegesis ends with the first verse of the main text. Each of the examples cited in the exegesis receives increasingly harsher punishment, until the people are destroyed by o( o(loqreuth/j (the Lord), apparently the fate of those who drink from e)piqumi/a rather than from the ever-present rock (Christ). Finally, in the closing statement of the inclusio (v. 11), all of this is said to be instruction of eternal import. What is striking about this is that, taken together with vv. 12-13, the entire pericope can easily stand on its own as a focused statement against falling prey to the temptation of selfish craving, with a concluding exhortation centered in the faithfulness of God: as God has destroyed, he can also deliver. In view of this, it is natural to speculate that the pericope may have originally been independent of its present context, perhaps a Christian or pre-Christian homily of some sort. Indeed, the removal of all necessarily Christian elements from this pericope leaves an interesting 4 + 4 balanced pericope, with all of the essential elements intact. Of course, such a pre-Christian "homily" cannot be proved to have existed. But this does show that there is nothing essentially Christian about the structure or argument of the passage. ConclusionThe present study suggests that 10:1-13 is a self-contained midrash on e)piqumi/a in Numbers 11 and is not a piece revised in the direction of idolatry per se (as argued by Meeks)—although it certainly speaks against idolatry. As such, it is possible, though unproven, that it may have been an independent "homily" of some sort prior to its inclusion in the present letter. This leaves open the provocative question about its relation to the larger context of chapters 8-10. Only a word can be offered here, but it appears that 10:1-13 is significant for the larger context, moreso than its relationship with 10:14-22 and the idolatry theme might indicate. For seen in its broader context, 1 Cor 10:1-13 is a focused argument against a Corinthian craving (e)piqumi/a) for the wrong kind of "food." To insist on one's right to eat idol meat is to insist on eating from the fountain of e)piqumi/a, rather than from Christ, the rock. The desire to eat and drink in an idol's temple grows out of a larger problem: a selfish craving which proceeds without concern for the will of God or for others. Such egocentric insistence was long ago shown to be odious to God, who will recoil against such behavior. But God can provide deliverance even from that. Whether or not 10:1-13 needs the larger context, it appears that the larger context needs 10:1-13: a small but pointed midrash on craving evil.
|
||
|
Return to |