1 CORITHIANS 10:4 AND PHILO'S FLINTY ROCK Larry Kreitzer

A generation ago Professor Henry Chadwick remarked: "To me, at least, it seems clear that of all the non-Christian writers of the first century A.D. Philo is the one from whom the historian of emergent Christianity has most to learn."1 In keeping with the wisdom of this observation it is certainly true that a major area of investigation within NT scholarship has revolved around the question of the precise relationship between the Jew Philo of Alexandria and his Christian contemporaries, notably Paul the Apostle. This is particularly important when it comes to considering intepretations of the OT offered by both of these highly creative thinkers. For instance, there is some evidence to suggest that Paul's use of the Adam/Christ analogy in 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 is in response to a teaching about Adam similar to that we see contained in Philo's writings.2 Another point of comparison has been the treatment that Moses receives in the writings of both men, including Paul's assertions in Romans 5:14 and 2 Corinthians 3:7-18.3 However, nowhere has the discussion about the relationship between Philo and Paul been more focused than when it comes to their interpretations of the 'rock of Horeb.' Incidentally, it is worth pointing out that 'Horeb' is another name for 'Sinai' within the Elohist and Deuteronomist material of the Pentateuch, as for instance, in Exodus 3:1; 17:6; 33:6; Deuteronomy 1:2; 1:19; 4:10, 15; 5:2; 9:8; 18:16; 29:l. 4 In all likelihood there is a deliberate play on words in the He-

St. Paul and Philo of Alexandria', BJRL 48 (1966), p. 288.

2 As detailed in my article 'Christ and Second Adam in Paul', Communio Viatorum 32 (1989), pp. 55-101. Also see, D.T.Runia, 'God and Man in Philo of Alexandria*, JTS 39 (1988), pp. 48-75; John R. Levison, Portraits ofAdam in Early Judaism, (JSPS #1), (Sheffield Academic Press), (1988), pp. 63-88.
3 On this see, R. Williamson, 'Philo and New Testament Christology', ExpT 90 (1977-79), pp. 361-365.

109

LARRY KREUZER

brew here with the proper noun ' being built on the triliteral root 21 meaning 'to be waste or desolate.' Thus the 'mountain of Horeb* and, by extension, the 'rock of Horeb' as well become geographical abstractions of the Sinai area as being a place of wilderness and deso lation. We shall see the importance of this connection with the Deuteronomic tradition again below. The Old Testament image alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 is a familiar one, obviously taken from the narratives recorded in Exodus 17:6 and Numbers 20:7-11. The fact that the two OT sto ries come from the beginning and end of the wilderness wanderings respectively gave rise to many rabbinic stories of the 'rock of Horeb' following the people of Israel through the wanderings in the wilder ness. Quite clearly Paul uses the OT wilderness imagery as a type of Jesus Christ for the Apostle declares: 'They were drinking from a spir itual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ ( ' , )'. Paul's usage of the participle is generally taken to be reflective of the many Jewish legends about the mobility of this 'rock of Horeb,' the most important of which is found in Tosephta Sukka 3:11. Many commentators feel that this declaration in 10:4c is further evidence of Paul's belief in the pre-existence of Christ and associate the passage with such texts as Galatians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 1:24; 8:6; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15-20 and Philippians 2:6-11.5 In deed, Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer describe 10:4c as: "unquestionable evidence of the Apostle's belief in the pre-existence of Christ."6
4 The term 'Horeb' also occurs in 1 Kings 8:9; 19:8; 2 Chronicles 5:10; Psalm 106:19 and Malachi 4:4.

5 As does, for example, Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (NICNT), (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan), (1987), pp. 448-449. However, Richard L. Jeske, The Rock was Christ: The Ecclesiology of 1 Corinthians 10', in Kirche: Festschrift fr Gnther Bornkamm zum 75 Geburtstag, edited by Dieter Lhrmann and Georg Strecker, (J.C.B. Mohr: Tbingen), (1980), pp. 245-255, has challenged the christological focus of the passage altogether and argues instead for an interpretation which concentrates on the corporate imagery of 1 Corinthians 10:1-5. This means that the focus is shifted away from interpreting the verse as teaching the personal pre-existence of Christ.

110

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

However, the question of pre-existence of Christ is not the only one that arises out of this passage. There are other important considerations which come from a careful examination of this curious verse. For instance, what about the larger context of the passage? How does 10:1-4 fit within the argument of the chapter as a whole? How does the specific reference to 'the rock of Christ' add to the exhortation Paul delivers to the Corinthian congregation within the epistle? In short, contextual matters have been a major area of discussion. Related to this, and perhaps flowing from it, there remains some debate about whether or not 10:4c itself is a gloss added by Paul, or perhaps a later hand, to the rather structured unit contained in 10:113.7 This is an inevitable suggestion since, atfirstglance, 10:4c does not seem to be central to the flow of the argument. Such considerations about the context of 10:4c and whether or not it is an interpolation are indeed important, but they are not necessarily decisive to a consideration of the christological question itself. In other words, we must recognize the fact that Paul may have interjected the typological phrase of 10:4c without wishing it to be the central focus of the section. He may not be primarily concerned with a christological concern in this passage. In any event it is not primarily on the christological issue that we will focus most of our attention within this short article. We shall assume that Paul does himself write 10:4c and that he is making a christological declaration within it, however veiled or inappropriate to the larger argument we may feel this declaration to have been. The meaning of 'the rock' in Corinthians 10:4c and what insights might be drawn about it in terms of Paul's understanding of Jesus as prexistent Messiah are matters which have been well-rehearsed by commentators and need not be reproduced in full here. Our task is more modest and may be put in the form of a question: Are there any other important ideas of the NT which might be illuminated by a fresh con The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, (100), 2nd edition, (T & Clark: Edinburgh), (1914), p. 201. ^ Wayne A. Meeks, "'And Rose up to Play": Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1-22', JSNT 16 (1982), pp. 64-78. Meeks argues that Paul adds 10:4c because he wants to associate the larger issue of putting God to the test of Deuteronomy 32:15, where Israel scoffs at the 'Rock of his salvation'.

Ill

LARRY KREITZER

sideration of the background of this idea of the 'rock of Horeb'? It would seem so and in seeking to explore this matter we shall concentrate not only on the christological question itself, but also on an important related theme, that of the New Covenant. We ask: Might a fresh consideration of pre-Christian, Jewish parallels to this 'rock of Horeb' assist us in coming to a better understanding of the early Christian understanding not only of the Messiah himself, but of the New Covenant which the Messiah brings! Within this article we contend that the 'rock of Horeb' does provide us with an important OT image which lent itself to Christian typological exegesis, particularly in connection with the idea of the New Covenant. In proceeding to demonstrate this point we will first turn to some of the relevant Jewish texts which discuss the 'rock of Horeb' as a potential Messianic motif, seeking to determine how relevant the OT image is as a basis for christological expression. Here we are attempting to determine the boundaries of the image of the 'rock of Horeb' as a Messianic type. Then we will move on to consider it as a possible idea which Christian writers might have associated readily with the New Covenant motif.

A. The 'Rock of Horeb' in Jewish Legend: Basis for a Pre-existent Messiah? It is certainly true that the 'rock of Horeb' becomes a significant legend within later Jewish writings such as Pseudo-Philo 10:7 and 11:15 and Wisdom of Solomon 11:1-4. The last of these provides us with an interesting connection between the 'wisdom of God' and the 'rock of Horeb': 'Wisdom prospered their works by the hand of the holy prophet. They journeyed through an uninhabited wilderness, and pitched their tents in untrodden places. They withstood their enemies and fought off their foes. When they thirsted they called upon thee, and water was given them out of flinty rock, and slaking of thirst from hard stone.' The 'rock of Horeb' alsois a standard feature within many targumic and rabbinic sources.8 Perhaps one of the most interesting is that of the Targum Onqelos to Exodus 17:5-7 which builds upon the 'rock of Horeb' idea and associates it with the 'Shekinah' of the Lord. The

112

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

Targum9 reads: 'Whereupon the Lord said to Moses, "Pass in front of the people and take with you some of the elders of Israel; and the rod with which you struck the Nile, take it in your hand and go. Here I am about to stand there before you by the rock of Horeb, and you shall strike the rock and water will emerge from it, and the people will drink"; so Moses did accordingly in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the name of the place Nisetha and Mazutha because the Israelites contended, and because they tested the Lord saying, "Is the Divine Presence of the Lord among us or not?'" In view of passages such as these Jean Hring has commented: "We are here in the full stream of the spiritual exegesis of the Old Testament, so dear to the rabbis and notably to Philo."10 Yet, in spite of these, and many other, tantalyzing parallels, drawn from a host of Jewish sources, Oscar Cullmann maintains that "later Judaism does not interpret the rock of Ex. 17 and Nu. 20 Messianically."11 Nevertheless, it is precisely just this sort of overt Messianism which has been argued as underlying 1 Corinthians 10:4c. What shall we make of this? Is such a Messianic interpretation of the 'rock of Horeb' a distinctly Christian phenomenon or not? Are parallels such as Wisdom of Solomon 11:1-4 and the Targum Onqelos to Exodus 17:5-7, parallels which bring together the 'rock of Horeb' and the 'Wisdom of God' and the 'Shekinah of God' respectively, a sufficient basis upon which to postulate Christian christological belief? Or does Paul present us in 1 Corinthians 10:4c with a radically new departure in such matters? Is Paul taking a step never made within Judaism before (as Cullmann suggests)? If so, how much of a break with his Jewish

Some of these legends are surveyed by E. Earle Ellis in "A Note on First Corinthians 10:4" JBL 76 (1957), pp. 53-56. This article is reprinted in Ellis's Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan), ( 1978), pp. 209-212. ^ Quoted from The Targum Onqelos to Exodus, (The Aramaic Bible Volume 7), by Bernard Grossfield, (T & Colark: Edinburgh), (1988), p. 48. *0 The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, (Epworth Press: London), (1962), p. 84.
11 Article on '* in TDNT, Volume 6, (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan), (1968), p. 97.

113

LARRY KREITZER

background does this represent? Or is there still a point of contact between the Jewish understanding of the 'rock of Horeb' and the Chris tian one, one which is able to stand the pressures of the christological shift in emphasis which seems at the heart of Paul's declaration? The well-known descriptions of Philo of Alexandria must be taken into account in any serious discussion about the contribution of 1 Corinthians 10:4 to Pauline christology. The most important of these is Legum Allegoria II86, where the terms , and are all brought together in a highly creative fashion. Note the following two representative statements: 'the flinty rock is the wisdom of God' and 'the primal existence is God and next to him is the Word of God.' Certainly what underlies this allegorical section of Philo is a 'wis dom theology' of the type we now are beginning to recognize was so terrifically influential within the earliest stages of Christianity. Space does not permit us to delve very deeply into complicated details of how Philo's exegetical method proceeds, or how it compares with Paul's. 12 At the very least we would have to say that Philo provides an extremely valuable comparative point to Paul and note that it is the association of key theological ideas which is at the heart of the matter. Here the critical question is how central wisdom is within Philo as a basis for his theological expression and how that can be compared to or associated with the thought of Paul. We could set out one of the most commonly argued suggestions about Paul's doctrine of the preexistence of Christ and its connection with Philo in the form of a sim ple syllogism: If: and: therefore: the rock is pre-existent wisdom (Philo) Christ is the rock (Paul) Christ is pre-existent

Not all NT scholars are happy with this conclusion, however. For example, James D. G. Dunn is reluctant to accept this and effectively sustains this reluctance by emphasizing the distinction between alle gory and typology that he feels distinguishes the approaches of Philo and Paul. In other words he has attempted to clarify the precise relaOn this see, E. Earle Ellis, Paul's Use of the OldTestament, (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan), (1981 reprint of 1957 edition), pp. 38-84.
1 2

114

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

tionship between Paul and Philo on the point of pre-existence by sug gesting a distinction be made between a typological interpretation and an allegorical one. Thus Dunn comments: "All we can safely say is that the allegorical interpretation of Philo (or of Alexandrian Judaism) may well have prompted the more typological interpretation of Paul: as rock = Wisdom in Alexandrian allegory, so rock = Christ in Chris tian typology."13 The implication of this is that Dunn moves away from 1 Corinthians 10:4c as contributing significantly to our understanding of Paul's thought as affirming belief in a pre-existent Christ. There seems little doubt that Dunn is correct in interjecting this note of caution. We do need to be careful that we are not too eager to arrive at the casual assertion of the pre-existence of Christ by means of 'Philo' s rock' and its equation with the pre-existent wisdom of God. The logical syllo gism effectively operates by a substitution of equivalents and builds a christological argument on this basis. This seems a precarious way, at best, to proceed even if we were willing to accept that earlier in the epistle (such as in 1:24 and 8:6) Paul has demonstrated his belief in Christ as the 'wisdom of God'. So it seems we must observe Dunn's cautionary warning here. But are there other ways in which a case for Pauline belief in the pre-existence of the Messiah in 1 Corinthians 10:4 can be sustained? Does it need to rely so heavily upon such an association of key ideas (rock = pre-existent wisdom = Jesus Christ)? Another approach has been to argue for the pre-existence of Christ in 1 Corinthians 10:4c on the basis of the tense of the verb in the verse, a suggestion which makes 10:4c strikingly reminiscent of the declaration made in John 1:1a: 'In the beginning was () the Logos...'. For example, R. G. Hamerton-Kelly says: 14 "the use of the imperfect () in 10:4 shows that Paul has the real pre-existence of Christ in mind and not simply a typological identification between the rock and Christ." Another recent example of this approach is Gordon D. Fee who uses the past sense of the imperfect verb () as his main counter to the argument put forth by Dunn. Commenting on Paul's
1 3

Christology in the Making, (SCM Press: London), p. 184.

1 4 Pre-existence, Wisdom & the Son of Man, (SNTS Monograph 21), (Cambridge University Press), (1973), 132. Also see, Fred B. Craddock, The Pre-existence of Christ in the New Testament, (Abingdon Press: Nashville), (1968), pp. 114-116.

115

LARRY KREUTZER

identification of the rock with Christ and the typological character of Israel's wilderness experience as a means to associate the activities of the disobedient Israelites with those of the disobedient Corinthian believers, Fee states: "How much by this identification Paul intended to stress Christ's pre-existence is moot, but it seems far more likely that he uses the verb 'was' to indicate the reality of Christ's presence in the OT events than that he sees him there simply in a figurative way."15 In short, Fee is demonstrating how thin the separation between the allegorical and a typological approach to this particular christological point can be. It has to be recognized that the force of the imperfect verb does at least raise to a higher level of discussion the question of the pre-existence of Christ. To put the point in its simplest form: Why does Paul not say 'the rock is Christ' and therefore conform more to the allegorical or typological pattern we might expect? Is it not because through this clause we are seeing, however imperfectly, something of Paul's understanding of Christ as somehow being actually present in the OT period and being made manifest through the 'rock of Horeb'? Is this not pre-existence in all but name? If such a suggestion is true, then discussions about the subtle distinctions of the allegorical versus typological interpretations of the phrase become somewhat forced.16 In any event, 1 Corinthians 10:4c does seem to me to be a very precarious web from which to suspend the idea of Christ's pre-existence in Paul and I cannot help but share some, but not all, of Dunn's scepticism on the matter. The whole 'rock of Horeb' idea seems to my mind to be sufficiently ambiguous, and perhaps deliberately mysterious, so as to render its contribution to the solution of the pre-existence question open to doubt. But we should not collapse in despair, for a more fruitful approach to unlocking the contribution of this phrase to Christian theology might yet be found.

13 The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (NICNT), (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan), (1987), p. 449.

* On this point see: A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul's Technique and Theology, (SPCK: London), (1974), pp. 100-103, where the issue is discussed in connection with Galatians 4:21-5:1. Also worth consulting is Hanson's The Living Utterances of God, (DLT: London), (1983), pp. 49-53, where further criticism of Dunn's case is offered.

116

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

Assuming (with Professor Dunn) that the above syllogism is inap propriate for the moment, what does it mean for our understanding of Messianism at large? Dare we overlook the association of 'the rock' with a developing Messianism of the day? Must the quest for a Messianic connection in the form of the 'rock of Horeb' be aban doned altogether? Is there any evidence to suggest that Philo is in any way a Jewish parallel to other NT writers in this regard? Does the fact that Philo and Paul adopt different methods of relating the 'rock of Horeb' to Wisdom/Messianism (allegory and typology, respectively) mean that the question of the 'rock' must be laid aside altogether? Perhaps it is more helpful to phrase the key question in another way: Does a closer examination of Philo's allegorical interpretation of the 'the rock' bring us any nearer to a better appreciation of a de veloping recognition of a New Covenant theology as something cen tral to Christian belief? Accepting that we cannot turn to the 'rock of Horeb' in Philo as a convenient way to assert (or prove) the pre-exist ence of Christ in Paul, might the 'rock' contribute in another way to our understanding of Christian belief? In order to pursue this further we need to examine the work of Philo more closely and concentrate on another key term frequently used by him in connection with this 'rock of Horeb.'

B. The'Rock of Horeb': Basis of a New Covenant Motif? The reference in Legum Allegoria II86 is again an interesting place to begin, for as we noted above, it provides us with a fascinating passage linking together the wisdom of God and 'the rock.' The critical verse, at least as far as the reference to both and is concerned, reads: ('for the flinty rock is the wisdom of God'). This is quite straightfor ward and has often been appealed to by scholars in their commentar ies on 1 Corinthians 10:4c. They usually go on to point out as well that Philo then follows this declaration with a description of this 'rock', this wisdom of God, as also providing manna to supplement the water and thus sustain the people of God as they wander in the wilderness. Thus, Hans Conzelmann notes that "Philo allegorically equates the

117

LARRY KREITZER

three elements rock, water and manna." Some scholars have been quick to point out that this is remarkably reminiscent of John 6:48-58 where Jesus is called the 'manna from heaven' and a host of Johannine interpreters have pursued the pre-existence question by means of this passage. The Johannine connection is an interesting one, especially in light of the fact that John 7:37 might legitimately be taken to be building upon the 'rock of Horeb' image.18 However, it does seem that the visions of Ezekiel 47:1-11 and Zechariah 14:1-11 are also likely backgrounds to John's declaration in 7:37 given what we know about a 'New Temple' theology within his gospel. But we can safely leave further consideration of this until another time. To return to the task at hand, it is important to note, that this sen tence from Philo is certainly not the only time that the unusual quali fying word occurs (it is usually translated as "hard," "sharped-edged," or "flinty"). The term appears, quite interestingly, in the previous sentence of Legum Allegoria II 86 with reference to God's own wisdom. This wisdom is said to be sent forth in a stream ( ). Unfortunately, the fact that it is used here in reference to God's own wisdom is lost in some of the available translations, as it is for in stance in the translation of F. H. Coulson and G. H. Whitaker in the Loeb edition (which translates the relevant phrase 'until God send forth the stream from his strong wisdom'). We thereby risk missing a significant connection in Philo's thought, a link which is quite inter esting and important for our considerations. What precisely is this link? In short it is the fact that the adjective ('sharp' or 'flinty') shifts from to in successive sentences and car ries with it an accompanying shift in antecedents, that is to say, from 'God' Himself to 'the rock.' The link between 'wisdom' and 'the rock' is thereby strengthened all the more: both are .

17

1 Corinthians, (Hermeneia Commentaries), (Fortress Press: Philadelphia), (1975), p. 167. 1 Gospel of Thomas Logion 108 provides an interesting parallel to John 7:37: 'Jesus said: "Whoever drinks from my mouth shall become as I am and I myself will become he, and the hidden things will be revealed to him."'

l/

118

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

However, Philo is not alone in bringing these two terms together and it is misleading to suggest that he is the first to do so. In fact, the LXX of Deuteronomy 8:15 also uses both and in a verse which is an obvious allusion to the story contained in Exodus 17:6: '(God) who led you through the great and terrible wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water, who brought you water out of the flinty rock ( )'. Similarly, both terms occur in Psalm 113:8 (LXX): '(God) who turns the rock () into a pool of water, the flint () into a spring of water.'19 Indeed, we could go so far as to suggest that Philo is dependent upon the connection of the terms within the LXX and draws upon them in his own writings. He does, for instance, use the allegorical imagery of the 'rock of Horeb' in Legum Allegoria II84, an extended section given over to discussing human passions. Note how Philo quotes Deuteronomy 8:15-16 within this passsage: 'For the prophet says: "Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, where there was biting serpent and scorpion and drought, where there was no water, who brought out a spring of water for thee from that hard rock ( ), who fed thee with manna in the wilder ness, which thy fathers knew not." You see that it is not only when attracted by the passions of Egypt that the soul falls in with the ser pents, but when it is in a wilderness too that it is bitten by pleasure, that subtle and snake-like passion.' Philo also uses the phrase , or an approximate one, in at least three other places {De Somniis II 221; Mos I 210; and Decalogue 16). 20 However, the key point for our considerations is
The term is the LXX translation of the Hebrew halamiS, quite a rare word (5 times in the OT) the precise meaning of which is unknown. In addition to the two passages just cited the Hebrew word also appears in Deuteronomy 32:13; Job 28:9 and Isaiah 50:7. 20 In each of these instances there is a deliberate allusion to the Old Testament imagery of the story from Exodus and in the first of the three there is a deliberate play on the words ('sharp') and ('steep'). Thus, De Somniis II 21, quoting Exodus 17:6, expounds: "'This I, the manifest, Who am here, am there also, am everywhere, for I have filled all things. I stand ever the same, immutable, before thou and aught that exists came into being, established on the topmost ( ) and most ancient source of power, whence showers forth the birth of all that is, whence streams the tide of wisdom.' For I am He 'Who brought the fountain of water from out
1 9

119

LARRY KREITZER

the fact that Philo uses Deuteronomy 8:15-16, including the two terms and , in Legum Allegoria II84, and then follows this up with a clear and unambiguous association of the terms and with the * wisdom of God' shortly after in Legum Allegoria II 86. Are there any places where the adjective is used in such a way that our understanding of NT thought might be advanced? It is, after all, quite a rare and unusual word, one which does stand out somewhat awkwardly. A. D. H. Mayes21 calls the use of in Deuteronomy 8:15 a "rhetorical addition," but does not go on to give any suggestion about why such a rhetorical flourish occurs. Do we have any clues about why such an unusual term might have been added at this point? Here we need to take into account one other relevant passage from the LXX which uses the term and note its context. Thus, one additional piece needs to be added to what might be called 'the puzzle of Philo's flinty rock.' This additional passage comes in the form of the LXX text of Joshua 5:2-3. There we read that the same word is used in con nection with the stones used for the circumcision of the children of Israel. The relevant section reads: "Make for yourselves stone knives out of flinty stone and sitting down circumcise the sons of Israel ( , ). This is, of course, built on the story of Exodus 4:25 and seems to be taken directly from it except for the one, small incidental fact that the word is not actually used in the LXX of Exodus 4 at all. Instead, in the LXX of Exodus 4:25 a completely different word for 'sharp stone' is used. This is the term (although it is worth pointing out that Theodotion's text does use ). In other words it seems that the passage in Joshua 5:2-3 recasts the story of Exodus 4:25 in such a way that it ends up using a term which we happen to know is associated later, by Philo,

the steep rock ( )'" In Decalogue 16 and in Mos I 210 the deliberate play on the two words is not explicit. In the latter we read that 'Moses, taking that sacred staff with which he accomplished the signs in Egypt, under inspiration smote the steep rock ( ).'
2 1

Deuteronomy, (NCB), (Marshall, Morgan & Scott: London), (1979), p. 193.

120

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

with the Wisdom of God. Another key piece in this puzzle is the fact that in Codex Alexandrinus the verse in Joshua 5:2 ends with the in sertion of the words . Why a second time? On the surface this is, of course, a recognition that the original generation of the Exo dus had all died, as verses 4-7 go on to expound. But in the hands of the Deuteronomist, who probably is responsible for the insertion of these verses into the story,22 the sense of the narrative takes on an all together different meaning. That is to say, the Deuteronomist inter jects a theological lesson about the nature of disobedience and pun ishment, about faithfulness and covenental responsibilities, into the traditional Gilgal story. He is calling for a renewal of the Covenant with God, for a second establishment of the Covenant, in short, for a NEW COVENANT. We have already noted above the symbolic sig nificance of the term 'Horeb' within the Deuteronomist's presenta tion of the widerness stories. We see the influence of the Deuteronomist here again. What do these hints drawn from Joshua suggest? How do they lead us back to a fresh consideration of the NT, and perhaps even beyond that, of subsequent Christian writers? At this point it is important to note the larger context of Joshua 5:2-2. In other words, the couplet in verses 2-3 serves to introduce the description of the Passover celebra tion contained in 5:10-11. That is to say, that according to Exodus 12:43-49 only the circumcised sons of Israel were allowed to celebrate the Passover and verses 2-3 are therefore necessary to introduce the description of the Passover feast which follows. The Passover setting of the passage is all-important and should not be overlooked. Having examined Joshua 5 briefly we are now in a position to turn our attention more directly to the related Christian evidence. Here we can identify three different Christian perspectives which may find a common basis of understanding in a New Covenant theology, a per spective we have discovered through our study of Philo's 'flinty rock of Horeb.'
2 2 As H. Wheeler Robinson suggests in Deuteronomy and Joshua, (CB), (T. C. & E. C. Jack: Edinburgh), (1907), p. 288. Robinson goes on to say that the Deuteronomist redactor may be attempting to harmonize the institution of circumcision by Joshua here with that instituted by Abraham in Genesis 17. This makes sense, Robinson says, given the fact that Joshua 5:9 does seem to imply that circumcision was not practiced in Egypt.

121

LARRY KREITZER

The first has to do with the Apostle Paul himself and may be put in the form of a question. Could it not be that this passage from Joshua is also one that springs into Paul's mind when discussing the 'rock' in the wilderness in 1 Corinthians 10:4c? In other words, we have here in Joshua 5:2 a passage which speaks of re-circumcision, the Second or New Covenant (if the LXX of Codex Alexandrinus is to be ac cepted), and the 'rock' all in one place. Is it sheer coincidence that all of these themes fit together so neatly as expressions of the Christian faith, that several of them become so important in several of the Pauline letters? We know how the question of circumcision dominates the argument of Galatians. Similarly, the idea of the New Covenant is of prime importance to the Moses/Sinai imagery underlying 2 Corinthians 3:7-18.23 Most importantly of all, the passover context of Joshua 5 helps us understand the ecclesiological setting of the passage in 1 Corintians 10 where the Apostle is primarily concerned with abuses around the Lord's Table. The critical verse in 10:11 helps emphasize the typological lesson to be drawn from the Passover feast of the an cient people of Israel and applied to the Corinthians in their Lord's Supper practices. The pieces of the puzzle seem to lock together here, although it must be admitted that we are assuming the Lord's Supper to have been in Paul's mind inextricably linked to the Passover feast of the Old Covenant. This is an opinion which has not been accepted by all NT scholars but does seem to be a reasonable and fair judge ment.24 Having noted the eucharistie setting of Paul's ethical exhortation in 1 Corinthians 10, can we extend the idea one step further and say that he also has the Christian practice of baptism in mind? There are, after all, several suggestive parallels, namely use of the verb in 1 Corinthians 10:2. This seems to be what Calvin has in mind when
15 On this see, A. T. Hanson, 'Midrash in II Corinthians 3\ JSNT 9 (1980), pp. 2-28.

2 4 The matter is discussed briefly in W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, (SPCK: London), (2nd edition, 1955), p.l 10, who comments: "We can be sure that the Passover Rite must have loomed large in Christian circles in any attempt at expressing the new religion." I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord's Supper, (Paternoster Press: Exeter), (1980), pp. 119-120, agrees saying: "Paul's language shows that he is dependent on a tradition which reflected the origins of the Lord's Supper in a Jewish meal."

122

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

he comments on 10:4 thus: "There is no doubt that Paul compares our sacraments with those of the Israelites."25 Similarly, although Luther uses the 'rock of Horeb' image very often and in a variety of ways, the most important use of 10:4c in his writings has to do with his understanding of the sacraments.26 Such an association of the two sacraments seems acceptable, given that both are expressions of the Christian believer as a participant in the New Covenant and both clearly have become matters of controversy within the Corinthian church. If we are correct on this point, 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 becomes one of the very few places in the whole of the NT where both sacraments, baptism and Lord's Supper, are mentioned together. But caution must be exercised at this point, since we must guard against overextending the text and trying to make it say more about the nature of Christian baptism than it was ever intended to do. As G. R. Beasley-Murray remarks about Paul's baptismal teaching in this passage; "The purpose of this passage is paranetic, and...Paul has severely subordinated the baptismal motif to ethical instruction as to make the former of uncertain value in constructing his theology of baptism."27 Nevertheless, it does seem that the New Covenant theology underlying Joshua 5 does have several important connections to Paul's teaching as contained in 1 Corinthians 10. It is not unreasonable to suggest that a tennous line of contact between Joshua 5;2-3, the 'flinty rock of Horeb' (as contained in Deuteronomy 8:15-16 and Philo Legum Allegoria II 86), and 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 can be drawn. Although Philo is not specifically concerned with a New Covenant theme, concentrating instead on expounding the OT in terms of his philosophical worldview, the link between him and Paul may be firmer than we sometimes are willing to concede. I cannot help but wonder if, in the
25 First Epistle ofPaul the Apostle to the Corinthians, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh), (1960), p. 204. 2 *> Not surprisingly, Luther frequently uses the 'rock of Horeb' image of 1 Corinthians 10:4 as a foil to counter Papal interpretations of Matthew 16:18, asserting that Christ and Christ alone is the 'Rock.' 2 ' Baptism in the New Testament, (Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan), (1962), p. 185.

123

LARRY KREITZER

light of all of this circumstantial evidence, we really should insist that Philo* s 'rock of Horeb' as an expression of pre-existent wisdom and Paul's 'rock of Horeb' as an expression of pre-existent Christ are re ally all that far apart. Does not the curious use of the term in several background passages point to an overlap of interest and thought between Philo and Paul which invites explanation along the lines we have suggested? Secondly, how far is this New Covenant idea drawn from Joshua 5 really from that contained within Hebrews, given the added fact that the title of the Old Testament book itself (!) is so pregnant with meaning and used to great effect by the anonymous writer of Hebrews in 4:8? As Harold W. Attridge remarks on this verse: "The reference to Joshua, whose name in Greek () is the same as that of Jesus, suggests a typological comparison between on of the old covenant and that of the new."28 At the same time, is it any accident that of all the NT documents it is Hebrews that is almost certainly connected in some way with the Alexandrian allegorical tradition? In light of this connection, it is hardly surprising that Luther called at tention to Acts 18:24-28 and the description of Apollos as 'an Alexandrian Jew...an eloquent man well-versed in the scriptures' in support of his ideas about the authorship of that document?29 Thus, several suggestive strands seem to be linking Hebrews and the Alexandrian school of allegorical interpretation, perhaps best personi fied within the NT period by the work of Philo himself. Thirdly, wefindthat Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho (circa AD ISO) makes much of the Joshua 5:2-3 passage as a means to ex press the surpassing excellencies of the Christian faith to his Jewish protagonist. He especially contrasts the Jewish circumcision of the Old Covenant with that figuratively expressed in Christ within the

16 Hebrews, (Hermeneia Commentaries), (Fortress Press: Philadelphia), (1989), p. 130. Attridge notes that the Epistle of Barnabas 6:8 also makes the typological con nection between the two figures. 2 ^ As in Luther's Works: Volume 8: Lectures on Genesis 45-50, (Concordia Pub lishing House: St. Louis, Missouri), (1966), p. 178. These lectures come toward the end of Luther's life and probably date to November of 1545. However, it appears he first suggested Apollos as the author of Hebrews in the Preface to the letter within the 1522 edition of the NT.

124

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

bounds of the New Covenant. Three passages in particular are sig nificant in this regard. In 24:2 Justin declares: 'Jesus Christ circum cises all who will with knives of stone that they might be a righteous nation, a people keeping faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace.' Finally, in 114-5 we read: 'Blessed therefore are we who have been circumcised the second time with knives of stone. For your first cir cumcision was and is performed by iron instruments, for you remain hard-hearted; but our circumcision, which is the second, having been instituted after yours, circumcises us from idolatry and from abso lutely every kind of wickedness by sharp stones, i. e. by the words preached by the apostles of the cornerstone cut out without hands. And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life.' Although admittedly in none of these passages is the adjective used by Justin in connection with the 'knives of stone,' it is nevertheless quite clear that the underlying passage being alluded to throughout is Joshua 5:2. At the same time it is clear in 114:4-5 that the incident recorded in Exodus 17:7 and Numbers 20:11 is also in the mind of Justin Martyr.30 Thus, here once again the 'rock of Horeb' appears unambiguously as a symbolic expression of the New Covenant of Christ.

Conclusions We began our study by noting the potential role that Philo of Alexan dria has in helping to illuminate the NT writings, particularly those of Paul. We focused our attention upon the curious passage contained in
3 L. W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Ufe and Thought, (Cambridge University Press), (1967), pp. 70-74, suggests that Justin here builds upon a traditional JewishChristian understanding of Jesus as the 'Stone' (as in Psalm 118:22-23?). Barnard goes on to suggest that perhaps the use of such OT testimonia by Justin is ultimately based on Daniel 2:34-35 and that it is to this text that Joshua 5:2 becomes attached by the apologist. Effectively Joshua 5:2 thus represents an expansion of 'stone' or 'rock' imagery.

125

LARRY KREITZER

1 Corinthians 10:4c where Paul uses an OT image, the 'rock of Horeb,' and applies it typologically to Christ. We then turned to examine how this same image is used by Philo and sought to explore whether or not this 'rock of Horeb' idea might therefore provide evidence of belief in a pre-existent Messiah withinfirst-centuryJudaism. We noted some of the scholarly discussions which have concentrated on the christo logical questions raised by the parallels, noting how they are largely dependent upon fine distinctions between Philo's allegorical approach to the OT and Paul's more typological approach. We next moved to consider whether the 'rock of Horeb' might in stead provide a link to the New Covenant motif. This consideration was explored, primarily through the use of the term , which is found in key sections of Philo and several relevant OT texts includ ing Deuteronomy 8:5-6 and Joshua 5:2-3. The wider New Covenant context of Joshua 5 was noted as especially important and several significant links to key Christian writings, including Paul, Hebrews and Justin Martyr were outlined. These links are substantial enough to suggest that a unifying theme (in the form of a New Covenant mo tif) can be traced from Joshua, through Philo, Paul and Hebrews and into the writings of Justin Martyr. An important implication of our study is that the writings of Philo of Alexandria should not be over looked as important documents through which the NT texts can be better understood.

126

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.