1 cor 10.4 - philo's flinty rock

7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.4 - Philo's Flinty Rock

1/19


2/19

LARRY KREUZER

brewhere with the proper noun ' being built on the triliteral root

21 meaning 'to be waste or desolate.' Thus the 'mountain ofHoreb*

and, by extension, the 'rock ofHoreb' as well become geographicalabstractions 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 wanderingsrespectively gave rise to manyrabbinic stories of the 'rock ofHoreb'

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

ofHoreb,' the most important of which is found in Tosephta Sukka

3:11.

Many commentators feel that this declaration in 10:4c is further

evidence ofPaul'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 ofthe Apostle's belief in the pre-existence

of Christ."6

4The term 'Horeb' also occurs in 1 Kings 8:9; 19:8; 2 Chronicles 5:10; Psalm

106:19 and Malachi 4:4.

5As does, for example, Gordon D. Fee,

The First Epistle to the Corinthians,(NICNT), (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan), (1987), pp. 448-449. However, RichardL. Jeske, The Rock was Christ: The Ecclesiology of 1 Corinthians 10', in Kirche:


3/19

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

However, the question of pre-existence ofChrist is not the only onethat arises out of this passage. There are other important considera

tions which come from a careful examination of this curious verse.For instance, what about the larger context ofthe passage? How does10:1-4 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 10:1-

13.7 This is an inevitable suggestion since, atfirstglance, 10:4c does

not seem to be central to the flow of the argument. Such considera

tions about the context of 10:4c and whether or not it is an interpola

tion are indeed important, but they are not necessarily decisive to a

consideration ofthe christological question itself. In other words, wemust recognize the fact that Paul may have interjected the typologicalphrase of 10:4c without wishing it to be the central focus of the section. He may not be primarily concerned with a christological con

cern 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. Themeaning of 'the rock' in Corinthians 10:4c and what insights might

be drawn about it in terms of Paul's understanding of Jesus as pr

existent 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 ofa question: Are there any otherimportant ideas ofthe NT which might be illuminated by a fresh con-

The First Epistle ofSt. Paulto the Corinthians, (100), 2nd edition, (T &


4/19

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 concen

trate 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 ofthe 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 readilywith 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 ofthese provides us with aninteresting 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


5/19

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

Targum9 reads: 'Whereupon the Lord said to Moses, "Pass in front ofthe people and take with you some ofthe elders ofIsrael; and the rod

with which you struck the Nile, take it in your hand and go. Here I amabout to stand there before you by the rock of Horeb, and you shallstrike 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 ofthe place Nisetha and Mazutha because theIsraelites 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: "Weare here in the full stream of the spiritual exegesis of the Old Testa

ment, 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 Never

theless, 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' adistinctly Christian phenomenon or not? Are parallels such as Wis

dom 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 Paulpresent 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 FirstCorinthians 10:4" JBL 76 (1957), pp. 53-56. This article is reprinted in Ellis's Proph-ecy andHermeneutic 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.


6/19

LARRY KREITZER

background does this represent? Or is there still a point of contact

between the Jewish understanding of the 'rock ofHoreb' and the Chris

tian one, one which is able to stand the pressures of the christological

shift in emphasis which seems at the heart ofPaul'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 ofthese

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 theWord 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 theassociation 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 pre-

existence of Christ and its connectionwith Philo in the form ofa sim

ple syllogism:

If: the rock is pre-existent wisdom (Philo)

and: Christ is the rock (Paul)

therefore: Christ is pre-existent

Not all NT scholars are happywith 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

g d t l g th t h f ls disti g ish s th h s f Phil


7/19

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

tionship between Paul and Philo on the point ofpre-existence by sug

gesting a distinction be made between a typologicalinterpretation and

an allegoricalone. Thus Dunn comments: "All we can safely say is

that the allegorical interpretation ofPhilo (or ofAlexandrian 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 ofthis is that Dunn moves awayfrom 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 ofcaution. 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 inChrist as the 'wisdom of God'. So it seems we must observe Dunn's

cautionarywarning 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 theverse, 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-Kellysays:14

"the use ofthe 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


8/19

LARRY KREUTZER

identification ofthe rock with Christ and the typological character ofIsrael'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 be

tween 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 ofthe 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 alle

gorical 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 ofthe allegorical versustypological 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-exist

ence 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 tomy mind to be sufficiently ambiguous, and perhaps deliberately mysterious, so as to render its contribution to the solution ofthe pre-existence question open to doubt. But we should not collapse in despair,

for a more fruitful approach to unlocking the contribution of this phraseto Christian theology might yet be found.

1 3The FirstEpistle to the Corinthians, (NICNT), (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michi

) (1987) 449


9/19

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 aMessianic connection in the form of the 'rock of Horeb' be aban

doned altogether? Is there any evidence to suggest that Philo is in any

waya 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 anotherway: Does a closer examination of Philo's allegorical interpretation

ofthe 'the rock' bring us any nearer to a better appreciation of a de

veloping recognition ofa 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 furtherwe need to examine the workof Philo more closely and concentrate

on another key term frequently used by him in connection with this

'rock ofHoreb.'

B. The'Rock ofHoreb':

Basis ofa New Covenant Motif?

The reference in LegumAllegoria II86 is again an interesting place to

begin, for as we noted above, it provides uswith 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 commentaries on 1 Corinthians 10:4c They usually go on to point out as well


10/19

LARRY KREITZER

three elements rock, water and manna."17

Some scholars have been

quickto point out that this is remarkably reminiscent ofJohn 6:48-58

where Jesus is called the 'manna from heaven' and a host ofJohannine

interpreters have pursued the pre-existence question by means of thispassage. 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 ofHoreb' 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 strongwisdom'). We thereby risk missing a

significant connection in Philo's thought, a linkwhich 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 linkbetween 'wisdom' and 'the

rock' is thereby strengthened all the more: both are .

l/1 Corinthians, (Hermeneia Commentaries), (Fortress Press: Philadelphia),


11/19

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 Exodus17:6: '(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 ofwater, the flint () into a spring of water.'19

Indeed, we could go so far as to suggest that Philo is dependentupon 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 ofHoreb' in Legum Allegoria II84, an extended

section given over to discussing human passions. Note how Philo

quotes Deuteronomy8:15-16 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 wasno 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 SomniisII 221; Mos I 210; and

Decalogue 16).20

However, the key point for our considerations is

1 9The 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 thetwo passages just cited the Hebrewword also appears in Deuteronomy32:13; Job 28:9and Isaiah 50:7.

20 In each of these instances there is a deliberate allusion to the Old Testamentimagery of the story from Exodus and in the first of the three there is a deliberate play


12/19

LARRY KREITZER

the fact that Philo uses Deuteronomy8:15-16, 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 AllegoriaII 86.

Are there any places where the adjective is used in such

a way that our understanding ofNT 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

Deuteronomy8:15 a "rhetorical addition," but does not go on to give

any suggestion about whysuch a rhetorical flourish occurs. Do wehave anyclues 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 ofPhilo'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 connection 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, ofcourse, built on the

storyofExodus 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


13/19

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

with the Wisdom ofGod. Another key piece in this puzzle is the fact

that in Codex Alexandrinus the verse in Joshua 5:2 ends with the in

sertion ofthe words . Why a second time? On the surface

this is, ofcourse, a recognition that the original generation ofthe 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

NEWCOVENANT. 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 beyondthat, 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 onlythe circumcised sons ofIsrael 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 settingof the passage is all-important and should not be overlooked.

Having examined Joshua 5 brieflywe are now in a position to turn

our attention more directlyto the related Christian evidence. Here we

can identify three different Christian perspectives which mayfind a

common basis of understanding in a New Covenant theology, a per

spective we have discovered through our study ofPhilo's 'flinty rock

ofHoreb.'


14/19

LARRY KREITZER

The first has to do with the Apostle Paul himself and may be put in

the form ofa question. Could it not be that this passage from Joshua

is also one that springs into Paul's mindwhen 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

ofthese themes fit together so neatly as expressions of the Christian

faith, that several ofthem become so important in several of the Pauline

letters? We know how the question of circumcision dominates the

argument ofGalatians. Similarly, the idea of the New Covenant is ofprime importance to the Moses/Sinai imageryunderlying 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 primarilyconcerned 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'sSupper practices. The pieces of the puzzle seem to locktogether 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 ofPaul's ethical exhortation in1 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

15On this see, A. T. Hanson, 'Midrash in II Corinthians 3\ JSNT9 (1980),

pp. 2-28.

2 4The matter is discussed briefly in W. D. Davies, Pauland Rabbinic Judaism,

(SPCK: London) (2nd edition 1955) p l 10 who comments: "We can be sure that the


15/19

1 CORINTHIANS 10:4

he comments on 10:4 thus: "There is no doubt that Paul compares oursacraments with those ofthe Israelites."25 Similarly, although Lutheruses the 'rock of Horeb' image very often and in a variety ofways, themost important use of 10:4c in his writings has to do with his understanding of the sacraments.26

Such an association ofthe two sacraments seems acceptable, giventhat both are expressions of the Christian believer as a participant in

the New Covenant and both clearly have become matters of contro

versy 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, arementioned together. But caution must be exercised at this point, sincewe must guard against overextending the text and trying to make it

say more about the nature of Christian baptism than it was ever in

tended to do. As G. R. Beasley-Murray remarks about Paul's baptis

mal teaching in this passage; "The purpose ofthis passage is paranetic,and...Paul has severely subordinated the baptismal motif to ethical

instruction as to make the former of uncertain value in constructinghis theology of baptism."27

Nevertheless, it does seem that the New Covenant theology under

lying Joshua 5 does have several important connections to Paul's teaching as contained in 1 Corinthians 10. It is not unreasonable to suggestthat 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, con

centrating instead on expounding the OT in terms of his philosophicalworldview, the link between him and Paul may be firmer than we

sometimes are willing to concede. I cannot help but wonder if, in the

2 5First Epistle ofPaulthe Apostle to the Corinthians, edited by DavidW. Torrance

and Thomas F. Torrance, (Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh), (1960), p. 204.2*> Not surprisingly Luther frequently uses the 'rock of Horeb' image of 1


16/19

LARRY KREITZER

light of all of this circumstantial evidence, we really should insist that

Philo*s 'rock ofHoreb' as an expression of pre-existent wisdom and

Paul's 'rock ofHoreb' 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 Hebrewsin 4:8? As HaroldW. Attridge remarks on this verse: "The reference

to Joshua, whose name in Greek() is the same as that ofJesus,

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 waywith the Alexandrian allegorical tradition? In

light of this connection, it is hardlysurprising that Luther called attention 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 workof 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

16Hebrews, (Hermeneia Commentaries), (Fortress Press: Philadelphia), (1989),

p. 130. Attridge notes that the Epistle of Barnabas 6:8 also makes the typological connection between the two figures.


17/19

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 ofstone 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 ofstone. 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 everykind 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 ofthe good Rock, which causes living water to burst

forth for the hearts ofthose who by Him have loved the Father of all,

and which gives those who are willing to drinkof the water of life.'

Although admittedly in none of these passages is the adjective

used by Justin in connection with the 'knives ofstone,' itis 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 ofthe New

Covenant of Christ.

Conclusions

We began our study by noting the potential role that Philo ofAlexan

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 andThought, (Cambridge UniversityP ) (1967) 70 74 t th t J ti h b ild t diti l J i h


18/19


19/19

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation 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.

1 cor 10.4 - philo's flinty rock

Documents