A Tale of Two Baptisms, Part 2

Just how much bearing does the passage from 1 Corinthians 10 have on the discussion?

Briefly, for those who would say “none” or “not much”, I would point out that down in verse 11 Paul tells us why he bothered to bring the story up in the first place: “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition…” Let’s also bear in mind the players in this discourse – the Apostle Paul is speaking here to the Corinthian church, a church filled with confusion around the sacraments. This is certainly not a situation in which we would expect the apostle to toss around sacramental terminology haphazardly; even if Paul didn’t transition smoothly from his comments on baptism in verse 2 and following to a discussion of communion in v.16-22 (which he does), to say nothing of his references to “spiritual meat” and “spiritual drink” in verses 3 and 4.

So while the first part of the chapter isn’t a treatise on baptism per se, I would argue that it has tremendous bearing on the discussion.

Obviously, he is speaking of baptism in a typological sense – but the entire point of Old Testament typology, or foreshadowing, is that it points forward to its New Testament antitype, or fulfillment. So having established that this early baptism is not and cannot be a declaration about the individual Israelite’s eternal status (since we know they weren’t all regenerate), we must ask again: what does it mean? In what way does it prefigure New Testament baptism?

To answer this crucial question, I would like to introduce what will be my primary argument on the significance of baptism as we move forward in the discussion. While baptism has many layers of significance and meaning, the two primary functions of baptism throughout the scriptures are to (1) formally denote covenantal identity and to (2) symbolize cleansing in the one baptized.

In the case of the Israelites passing through the Red Sea, we are given a prime example of baptism’s first function. They were baptized unto (or into) Moses. That is, by corporately passing through the waters they took advantage of God’s provision through Moses, and become formally identified in him as their covenant head.

But wait a minute! Didn’t the Israelites already have a sign of “covenantal identity” in circumcision, given to them in the Abrahamic covenant? Sure they did; but remember that not all of these people are ethnic Jews (Exodus 12:38), and that this is one example of God progressively renewing and expanding His covenant (more on that in another post). In many ways this baptism initiated the Mosaic covenant, which comes to fruition later in God’s provision of the Law at Mount Sinai. So while most of these people are already covenantally identified with Abraham through circumcision, this step in the progression of their covenant with Yahweh, in the typological figurehead of Moses, is formalized at the crossing of the Red Sea. True, Moses began operating as covenantal head of the Israelite people when he returned from Midian, but this relationship was “signed and sealed” at the crossing of the Red Sea.

In a future post we’ll talk about how this concept of covenantal identity is reflected in the New Testament sacrament.