The Sacramental Implications Of 1 Corinthians 10:1-4: A Confessional Study Of Baptism And The Lord’s Supper

By W. G. Crampton, Th.D.

W. G. Crampton, Th.D., is a pastor at Reformed Baptist Church, Richmond, VA, and author of From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism, available at www.rbap.net.

In 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 we read:

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor murmur, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

Introduction

First Corinthians 10:1-4 is richly laden with biblical teaching regarding the sacraments of the New Covenant community. Twice in the first eleven verses (vv. 6, 11) of this chapter the apostle himself claims that the things about which he is writing should be considered as “examples” or (better) “types” (from the Greek tupos), both positively and negatively, for our instruction.[1] Positively, these verses teach the NT community about the covenantal benefits of and the blessings associated with being a member of Christ’s church and partaking of the sacraments. Negatively, they are to warn the church against falling away from the faith, even after partaking of the sacraments of the covenant of grace. This passage has far too often been overlooked in the study of biblical sacraments. It is the purpose of this essay to investigate some of the sacramental implications and applications found within the text. We will see that that which is taught in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 is in accordance with the confessional view of the sacraments that the Reformed church has endorsed throughout the centuries of church history.

Overview

1. Background And Context

First Corinthians 10:1-4 must be studied within its proper biblical context—not only with regard to its immediate context, but also with its relationship to the whole epistle. With this in mind, a study of the background and context is in order.[2]

The apostle Paul (1:1) wrote 1 Corinthians (1:2) from Ephesus (16:8) during his third missionary journey (Acts 19:1-10), during the years of A.D. 53-57. He had previously spent approximately a year and six months in Corinth, when he founded the church on his second missionary journey (Acts 18:1-18). He had sent an earlier letter to the church (5:9) about an immorality problem, which was apparently misunderstood (5:10-11). After hearing of other problems in the church from Chloe’s people (1:11-13), and later questions that the church had for the apostle from Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17; confirm 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1), Paul penned this epistle. The apostle had previously sent Timothy to Corinth (by way of Macedonia; Acts 19:22) to minister to the saints (4:17; 16:10). After sending this letter, Paul apparently visited the church another time (see 2 Corinthians 12:14; 13:1-2; the “third time” indicates another visit besides Acts 18:1ff. and 20:3). The present epistle was (perhaps) carried by Titus.

2. Purpose And Outline

There are several purposes of this epistle: 1) To deal with congregational strife (1:11-13); 2) To deal with problems that Paul knew existed within the church (chapters 2-6); 3) To answer questions that the church had addressed to the apostle in another epistle (7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1).

Concerning its outline, after an introduction (1:1-9), Paul begins by addressing certain problems existing within the church at Corinth. He seeks to make corrections with respect to party strife (1:10-4:21), illicit sexual activity (5:1-13), and litigation (6:1-20). The apostle then addresses the questions that the Corinthians had for him (7:1-16:4). There were questions regarding marriage (7:1-40), Christian liberty (8:1-11:1), conduct in public worship (11:2-34), spiritual gifts (12:1-14:40), the doctrine of the resurrection (15:1-58), and the proper collection of tithes and offerings (16:1-4). Finally, Paul closes the letter with several remarks and exhortations (16:5-24).

The section of the epistle with which we are principally concerned falls within the area of Christian liberty. In chapter 8 the apostle deals with the principle of Christian liberty and the eating of foods having been offered to idols. Love must be manifested between Christians in this area. Although it is not sinful, in and of itself, to eat such meats, consideration should be shown to a brother who might stumble if a believer is seen partaking of these foods. One’s knowledge must be used in the biblical framework of love.

In chapter 9, Paul uses himself as an example of proper Christian liberty. He defends his apostleship (vv. 1-2) and states his apostolic rights (vv. 3-14). He then goes on to speak of his restraints on using his liberty (vv. 15-18), in order that he might be more effective in ministry (vv. 19-23). As an apostle, Paul is diligent in his self- control, his self-denial (vv. 24-27); he exercises himself in godly discipline (1 Tim. 4:7), constantly perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord (2 Cor. 7:1). Such discipline is essential in proper Christian warfare (Eph. 6:12-18).

Then in chapter 10, the apostle turns to the example of Israel, the OT people of God, or as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 19:3), the “church under age” (vv. 1-13).[3] The example is historical, and has to do with lessons and consequences of idolatry. In verses 14-22 Paul warns the Corinthians concerning the incompatibility of Christianity and idol feasts. Meat sacrificed to idols may be eaten under certain circumstances in a friend’s house (if no offence is given), but a believer should never be found in idols’ temples. Finally, Paul reiterates the need of believers to exercise love in such matters (vv. 23-33), and presents himself as an example to be followed (11:1).

Analysis Of 1 Corinthians 10:1-4

First Corinthians 10 follows directly on the heels of Paul’s teaching on self-denial (9:24-27). This is accentuated by the post-positive conjunction gar (“for”), in verse 1. Paul is warning the Corinthians that church membership, along with partaking of the sacraments, saves no one. Just like Israel, as the “church [ekklesia] in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38), was in a covenantal relationship with God, so too is the New Covenant community in Corinth. But being a participant in the “visible church” does not assure one of everlasting life. As expressed in the WCF (25:1-2), there is a difference between the visible church and the invisible church. The latter “consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all.” The visible church, on the other hand, “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children.” The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (LBC 26:1-2)[4] is in agreement with the Westminster Assembly when it comes to defining the invisible church. But when it comes to the visible church, the Baptist theologians aver that it consists only of “all persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it.” That is, the children of professing believers are not to be considered as members of the visible church in the New Covenant community. Notwithstanding this difference, both the paedobaptists and credobaptists (more will be said on these two positions below) recognize that there are some in the visible church who are not members of the invisible church. There are those who make a profession of faith who are not genuinely converted. Not all professions are true professions (Acts 8:9-24; Rom. 9:6; 2 Tim. 4:10). This being so, one must be diligent, as was Paul (1 Cor. 9:224-27), to make his calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10).

This is the purpose of the first part of chapter 10. It serves as a warning against falling away, particularly through idolatry (vv. 7-10).[5] The Corinthians must pursue holiness. Those who think they stand might just be the ones who fall away from the faith (v. 12). As Gordon Clark comments, “Paul warns against laxity, for laxity ruined most of the people with Moses.”[6] Philip Hughes, expatiating on this subject, says it this way:

There is a grave danger lest the Corinthians, puffed up by their superior knowledge, consider themselves immune to contamination from idolatry. Let them take a warning from the history of “their fathers” in the Old Testament. Led and blessed by the one true God though they had been, enjoying spiritual benefits and the manifold blessings the Lord bestowed, they had tried and provoked the Lord, and had murmured and rebelled against Him. Their history is highly relevant to the situation in which Christians are placed, and what is written about them is written not merely for our interest, but for our admonition. The lesson is pointedly stated in verse 12. But Paul immediately adds the assurance that there is no question of the fall of God’s people being inevitable; with every temptation that overtakes the believer, God, if we will but look to Him, provides a way of victory and escape. If the Corinthian believers are wise, then, they will heed Paul’s warning, and, far from treating idolatry as a light thing, will flee from it.[7]

In 10:1-5, then, we have the apostle cautioning the Corinthians, and warning them from the OT types of redemption, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, against apostasy. The Israelites’ redemption in their exodus from Egypt (v. 1) is a “type” of Christ’s redemptive cross work, which is viewed as a greater “exodus” (Lk. 9:31[8]). Whereas Israel was redeemed from slavery in bondage in Egypt (Exod. 20:1-2), Christ redeems His people from slavery to sin (1 Cor. 5:7; Rom. 6-8; Gal. 3:10, 13; 1 Pet. 2:24-25). The “new exodus” that the OT prophets had spoken of (Isa. 41:18-19; 43:19-21; 44:3-4; 63:10-17; Jer. 31:7-9; Hos. 1:10-11; 11:1-12) has now come to pass in the person and work of Jesus Christ.[9] Israel’s baptism (v. 2) as the people crossed the red sea is typical of NT water baptism (Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4). And Israel’s partaking of the manna and water from the rock (vv. 3-4) is a type of the Lord’s Supper (Lk. 22:14-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26).

That Paul had in mind the NT sacraments in this passage is beyond serious question. Calvin writes:

For they [the Israelites] were favored with the same benefits as we at this day enjoy; there was a church of God among them, as there is at this day among us; they had the same sacraments, to be tokens to them of the grace of God; but, on their abusing their privileges, they did not escape the judgment of God.[10]

Lenski states, “As all the Israelites received the type baptism, so all of them also received the analogous type of the Lord’s Supper.”[11] And Gordon Fee comments:

His [Paul’s] point seems to be: They [the Israelites] genuinely prefigure us when it comes to our experience of ‘baptism’ and the ‘Lord’s Supper’; be sure, therefore, that they do not prefigure us also in their idolatry…and subsequent judgment.[12]

Likewise, the WCF (27:5) footnotes 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 as biblical proof for its claim that “the sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard to the spiritual things signified and exhibited, were for substance, the same with those of the New.” As we will see, this is of utmost importance for our understanding of the NT sacraments. The NT antitypes are greater than the OT types. Therefore, a fortiori, that which was carried out symbolically in the Old, should be fully practiced in the New.

1. The Nature And Function Of The Sacraments

Prior to studying 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, it will benefit us to review the nature and function of the sacraments. Reformed theology maintains that the Word of God, the sacraments, and prayer are “means of grace.” As taught in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC Q. 88): “The outward and ordinary means [of grace] whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption, are His ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.” The Word of God is the primary means of grace, as it is complete as a means of grace. The sacraments and prayer, on the other hand, are only complete with the Word. The Word both begets and strengthens faith, whereas the sacraments and prayer only strengthen it. The Word of God explains the sacraments and prayer, and teaches us how they are to “made effectual to the elect for salvation.”

Our study is focused on the sacraments as a means of grace. According to the WCF (27:1), “sacraments are holy [visible] signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him.” The WSC (Q. 92) maintains that “a sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the New Covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.” This latter statement is very telling about who it is that should be a partaker of the sacraments, i.e., “believers.” The New Covenant is a covenant wherein all who are in it “know the Lord,” their sins have been forgiven and “remembered no more” (Heb. 8:8-12) (more will be said on this below).

So, the biblical sacraments are “visible” signs and seals of the covenant of grace. As such, they are visible sermons. As signs they point to something else, i.e., to what which they signify—certain inward spiritual graces. And as seals, they attest to the authenticity of or validity of the covenant promises of God (also relating to inward graces). The sacraments are “visible” seals, in that the Holy Spirit is the one who “seals” the people of God with salvific grace (Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30; 2 Cor. 1:22). The sacraments do not convey grace by themselves. It is only the Spirit of God who is able to convey grace, and He uses the sacraments as His instruments and mediums to do so to the elect.[13] The sacraments are not merely symbolic, because, as taught in the WCF (27:2-3), due to the sacramental union which occurs at the institution of the sacraments, there is a real, spiritual relationship between the elements, and that which they signify:

There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. 

The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them: neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

As taught by the WSC (Q. 94), water baptism is a New Covenant (visible) sign and seal of one’s entering into the covenant of grace: “Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, does signify and seal our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.” Water baptism, then, is a visible sign and seal of Holy Spirit baptism, or regeneration, at which time an individual salvifically enters into covenant with God; he is engrafted into Christ; he is in union with the Lord Jesus Christ (Lk. 3:16; Rom. 6:1-11; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Tit. 3:5-6). The recipient of water baptism covenantally belongs to the Lord. Water baptism itself does not save; it is a visible sign and seal of the reality of Holy Spirit baptism which is efficacious unto salvation. (Again, this definition is very telling as to who should receive the visible sign and seal of water baptism, i.e., those who have been engrafted into Christ; but more will be said on this below.)

As taught by the WSC (Q. 96), the Lord’s Supper is a New Covenant (visible) sign and seal of abiding in the covenant of grace, as in sanctification: “The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, His death is showed forth; and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of His body and blood, with all His benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.” The Lord’s Supper is symbolic of the progressive work of Christ’s Spirit transforming the individual into the image of Christ (2 Cor. 3:17-18; Rom. 8:29; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2). It is not the bread and wine that convey sanctifying grace; it is the work of the Spirit that conveys grace to those who believe in that which is signified and sealed in the elements; they are the “worthy receivers” who are spiritually nourished.

As we will see, the Reformed view of the sacraments is evident in this passage. Although there is a sacramental union between the elements and that which in reality is signifies, nevertheless, the elements and the reality signified are distinguished.

David Chilton points out that what is really the issue in the various views regarding the sacraments is the old philosophical question of “the one and the many.”[14] What is more important, unity or diversity? The non-Christian realist sees the oneness and unity as basic to all reality. The nominalist, on the other hand, sees diversity as basic. The Christian answer lies in the doctrine of the Trinity. The God of the Bible is triune; He is one in essence and three in person. He is both one (in one sense) and many (in another sense). The one is not more supreme than the many, nor vice-versa.

Non-Christian realism avers that the sacraments are “real things,” totally distinct from that which they represent. Thus, in the realist view, the sacraments apply grace ex opere operato (by the work working of itself). Nominalism, on the other hand, maintains that the elements are mere names or symbols; they are not the realities. Thus, the elements merely symbolize that which they signify, and nothing more.

The Reformed concept of Trinitarianism holds that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are more than symbols, yet they do not convey grace in and of themselves. The spiritual union which occurs at the institution of the sacraments assures us that Christ is spiritually present in a real way in baptism and the Lord’s Supper. There is an objective spiritual work which occurs in the sacraments; God’s people, by faith, are actually spiritually benefited, through the work of the Spirit of God. Yet the water remains water and the bread and wine remain bread and wine. Thus, as Sinclair Ferguson states, even though the sacraments do not convey grace ex opere operato, nevertheless, they are “no less effectual for not being ex opera operato.”[15]

2. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4

In verses 1 through 4 of chapter 10, Paul writes:

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

As noted above, verse 1 begins with the postpositive conjunction gar (“for”), which connects the passage under study with 9:24-27. This is followed, for purpose of stress, by a litotes (i.e., a means of expressing an affirmation by the negation of its opposite).[16] What Paul is saying in effect is: “I want you to understand these things brothers. I want you to pay special attention to what I am about to say.” By addressing them as “brothers” (adelphoi; in the vocative case) he is speaking to the Corinthians in accordance with their covenantal relationship within the church. By such a statement he does not imply that all of the members of the church are genuinely converted people (see, for example, 5:1-8, 11:30, and 15:34, where he questions the converted state of some of the Corinthians). But he recognizes their covenant status as a part of Christ’s visible church.

Having addressed the Corinthians in this fashion, the apostle now comes to the section on sacramental analogy (vv. 1b-4). He calls the Jews of antiquity “our fathers” (hoi pateres hemon), thereby connecting the Old Covenant people of God with those in the New.[17] There is a sense in which “the Jewish church is related as parent to the Christian church.”[18] It may be asserted here that “our fathers” represents the male federal heads of Israel, i.e., male adults only (see Exod. 3:15-16; Num. 26:55; 33:54). But it is more likely that when the apostle speaks of the fathers, he is referring to the entirety of Israel, and not just the male federal heads.[19] The Lord brought the entire nation out of Egypt, not just a portion of the people. Even though there is a covenantal discontinuity to be recognized between the Old and NT people of God (see Jer. 31:31-34), there is also covenantal continuity. Paul then uses the word pantes (“all”), a word that is found five times in the four verses under perusal. And as the OT church came out of Egypt, all were baptized and all ate of the covenant feast that God provided for them in Christ.

3. The Baptism Of Israel

Verses 1b-2: “All our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” There are a number of things that need to be seen in these verses. First, the incident being described in these verses is found in Exodos 14:19-22. Israel was led by the Angel of God (the pre- incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ), and accompanied by the pillar cloud, the Shekinah glory of God, as she fled Egypt. The cloud guarded Israel from Pharaoh and his armies, making a clear distinction between God’s people and the enemy (vv. 19-20). The “under the cloud” (hupo ten nephelen) wording here is undoubtedly a reference to the fact that Israel was under the guidance and protection of God’s glory-cloud (see Exod. 13:21). Then as Moses stretched forth his hand (holding the rod of God) over the red sea, the Lord caused the sea to separate and Israel marched through (vv. 21-22).

Paul interprets this event as the Israelites undergoing water baptism. Just as Christian life begins, after the redeeming work of Christ has been accomplished in the new birth (Jn. 3:3-8), with water baptism (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38-39), so also did Israel’s (typological) redemption begin with a type of water baptism.[20] Just as water baptism (as well as the Lord’s Supper) makes “a visible difference between those that belong to the church, and the rest of the world,”[21] thus Israel’s water baptism established her as a “separate and sacred, set apart for God alone.”[22]

Second, it also is evident from Exodus 14, that the entire Trinity is present with the Israelites as they passed through the Red Sea in their baptism. God the Father is present in separating the sea (v. 21); God the Son is present as the Angel of God (v. 19); and God the Spirit is present in the glory-cloud (Kline, Origen, Conzelmann, Dunn) (vv. 19-20), and/or the powerful “wind” that divided the Red Sea (Calvin) (v. 21), and/or the water that came upon the Israelites as they passed through the sea (vv. 21-22, 26) (Gill, Edwards).[23] Israel’s baptism, therefore, was in the name of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as Christ taught that Christian baptism is to be (Matt. 28:19).

Third, as we have already noted, as taught in the Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC Q. 165), water baptism is to be with water (Acts 8:38; 10:47-48), which signifies Holy Spirit baptism of regeneration (Lk. 3:16; Acts 1:5; Tit. 3:5-6): “Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ has ordained the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and to be a [visible] sign and seal of engrafting into Himself, of remission of sins by His blood, and regeneration by His Spirit.”

Water baptism saves no one. It is the Holy Spirit who regenerates (Jn. 3:3-8; Tit. 3:5-6). So too the OT church underwent baptism in water, as she passed through the sea. But the Spirit (in the glory-cloud) was always present with the people of God as they were en (“in”) the cloud and en (“in”) the sea (v. 2). The Greek preposition en here is to be seen as instrumental,[24] so that although there was water present in the baptism, it was “by means of” water and (typologically) “by means of” the Spirit that Israel received her baptism.[25]

As the passage goes on to explain, numbers of those in Israel (“most of them”) who were baptized (v. 5) did not receive that which water baptism visibly signifies and seals, i.e., Holy Spirit baptism. They remained unregenerate. Baptism is both a sign of blessing and curse. John the Baptist taught that Christ’s baptism is “with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matt. 3:11). The elect of God are given the Spirit, who regenerates (i.e., seals) them (Jn. 3:3-8; Tit. 3:5-6), and burns away (purifies) their sin (Isa. 6:6-7; Mal. 3:3; 1 Pet. 1:7). Baptized non-believers, on the other hand, receive the visible sign and seal of regeneration, but they do not receive “the seal” of the Spirit Himself. Their baptism results in being “with fire” only, and the wrath of God rests upon them.[26]

Fourth, baptism is a one-time sacrament. As taught in the WCF (28:1, 7) since it is a visible sign and seal one’s entering to the covenant of grace, it is only to be administered once:

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party into the visible church, but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of engrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life…. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

This is the case with Israel’s baptism. It was a one time event. The aorist middle ebaptisanto (in the Majority Text) in verse 2 speaks to this. The Critical Text uses an aorist passive, ebaptisthesan. The Majority Text should be favored here,[27] but both text types witness to Israel’s baptism as a one-time event. Notably, the (proper) aorist middle usage also points out that the baptism was voluntarily entered into by the recipients. That is, it could be translated “had themselves baptized into Moses,”[28] thereby indicating a credobaptist position.[29] It is “those who do actually profess repentance toward God, faith in, and obedience toward our Lord Jesus, [who] are the only proper subjects of this ordinance [baptism]” (LBC 29:2).

Fifth, paedobaptist scholars, such as Jonathan Edwards[30] and Gordon Clark,[31] aver that Israel’s baptism was by pouring or sprinkling. They would agree with the WCF (28:3), where it is stated, “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.” Credobaptist scholars, such as John Gill and Samuel Waldron aver that Israel’s baptism must be viewed, as it is “typical” of Christian baptism, by immersion. As Israel (typologically) descended into the waters of the sea, and ascended again on the dry land, writes Gill, this typifies being “baptized into His [Christ’s] death…[being] buried with Him [Christ] through baptism into death,” and “raised” again with Him that “we should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4).[32] Waldron, citing 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 (along with several other verses), contends that the various passages in the Bible that speak of pouring or sprinkling are “figurative…[for] the idea of immersion.” Water baptism, he writes, “literally means to immerse and figuratively means to overwhelm. Baptism points to our being completely and spiritually immersed into Christ and overwhelmed by His Spirit.”[33] These men would concur with the LBC (29:4) that “immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance [baptism].”

Sixth, water baptism was experienced by all Israel. As a redeemed community, “all [pantes] were baptized” (v. 2). Here we see the confessional teaching that baptism, as a sacrament, puts “a visible difference between those who belong unto the church, and the rest of the world” (WCF 27:1). The passage teaches us that “all” of the Israelites, as a typologically “redeemed” people (including the “mixed multitude” that went out of Egypt with them; Exod. 12:38), were baptized. The New Covenant sacrament of baptism, the antitype of Israel’s baptism, is for those “who know the Lord…from the least of them to the greatest,” those whose “sins and their lawless deeds” God “will remember no more” (Heb. 8:11-12). As we have seen, the aorist middle verb usage of ebaptisanto in verse 2 points to the fact that the recipients submitted themselves the ordinance administered. It is significant that every “household baptism” found in the NT (Acts 10-11; 16:13-15, 40; 16:30-34; 18:8 [compare 1 Cor. 1:14]); 1 Corinthians 1:16 (compare 16:15); and 1 Peter 3:20-21 (also typologically), affirms (either explicitly or implicitly) that all in the house who were baptized professed faith in Christ prior to receiving the sacrament; so too does this typological “household baptism.”

Further, to maintain that this passage teaches that infants are to be baptized says too much for the confessional paedobaptists. The reason being, as Beasley-Murray avers, that if the passage supports the doctrine of infant baptism it also supports the doctrine of paedocommunion—a doctrine properly rejected by confessional paedobaptists.[34] The Westminster divines, for example, maintain that “the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once…and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s Supper is to be administered often…and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves” (WLC 177).

It is for this reason that paedobaptist churches distinguish between “non-communicant” and “communicant” members. The former are those who have been baptized as members of the church, but are not “of years and ability to examine themselves,” and do not partake of the Lord’s Supper. The latter are those who have been baptized and who also partake of the Supper. This two-tiered view of church membership, however, unduly separates the two visible signs and seals of the covenant of grace. Paedobaptist Leonard Coppes seems to understand this. Citing the 1 Corinthians 10 passage under perusal, he writes:

If the essence of baptism is sacramental and it is (1 Corinthians 10:1-2), and if the essence of the Lord’s Supper is sacramental and it is (1 Corinthians 10:3-4), then there is a strong assumption that the essence of their being sacramental are related. That is, in some sense they operate in the same way as sacraments. They communicate grace in the same essential sense insofar as they are not regenerating sacraments.[35]

The fact is, as typified in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, that the NT sacraments go together: baptism and the Lord’s Supper are only for those who “know the Lord” (Heb. 8:11). The practice of a two-tiered church membership cannot be supported by Scripture.

Seventh, the Israelites were baptized “into [eis] Moses.” Lenski’s comments here are apropos:

The phrase eis ton Moses [“into Moses”] may be patterned after the similar New Testament phrase eis ton Christon [“into Christ”], but it can never be taken in the same sense of “into Moses” or Christ. No baptism nor anything else could in any conceivable sense carry the Israelites “into” Moses. The idea expressed is on of union: “to,” “unto,” or “for Moses.” This symbolical baptism united the Israelites to Moses as God’s representative to them, the Old Testament mediator, in whom was foreshadowed Christ, the New Testament eternal Mediator…. The deliverance from the Egyptian bondage through Moses by this symbolical baptism through the cloud and the sea likewise typifies our deliverance from the bondage of sin and of death through Christ by means of Christian baptism.[36]

As cited above, Christian baptism “is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, does signify and seal our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s” (WSC Q. 94. To be baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3), is to be baptized into His body (1 Cor. 12:13). It is to be engrafted into Christ; it is to be identified with Him.

James Boice points out that the Greek word baptizo is used to speak of a change of identity; that is, when something, or someone, is baptized, there is an identification with the object into which, or by which, it is baptized. When Israel, the OT “church under age” (WCF 19:3), was baptized into Moses, she was identified with him, as a Christ-type.[37] Moses was her covenant head; Israel belonged to Moses and she was to obey his commandments, as received from God. When one is baptized into Christ, the great antitype of Moses, he is identified with Christ; he is engrafted into Christ. And in her baptism, the New Covenant community, as the church come of age, is identified with the Lord Jesus Christ and is, in Christ’s words, “to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:19-20).[38]

4. Israel And The Lord’s Supper

Verses 3-4: “And all ate the spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” As in our study of verses 1b-2, there are also a number of things that need to be recognized in verses 3-4. First, it is evident that just as Israel received a typological baptism, she also partook typologically of the Lord’s Supper. Lenski comments, “As all the Israelites received the type of baptism, so all of them also received the analogous type of the Lord’s Supper.”[39] Calvin is of the same opinion:

He [Paul] now makes mention of the other sacrament, which corresponds to the Holy Supper of the Lord. ‘The manna,’ says he, ‘and the water that flowed from the rock, served not merely for the food of the body, but also for the spiritual nourishment of souls.’[40]

These two commentators (and others) recognize the sacramental implications of verses 3-4. In these verses Paul is describing Israel’s experience of Exodus 16:4-30, with the manna, and Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 20:2-13, with the water from the rock. Both of these were miraculous occurrences. Paul refers to them as a means of “spiritual” eating and drinking. The use of the word spiritual (pneumatikos) likely refers to the Holy Spirit.[41] In other words, the sustenance is “supernatural” in origin.[42] It is heavenly, angel food, not merely a daily physical sustenance (Psa. 78:24-25). According to Goppelt, “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink” were “probably current expressions for the distributed Eucharistic elements.” Similar language is found in the second century Didache.[43]

Second, as water baptism is a visible sign and seal of entering into the covenant of grace (as in regeneration), and therefore to be administered only once, the Lord’s Supper is a visible sign and seal of abiding in the covenant (as in sanctification), and therefore is to be taken often. This is explained by the WLC (Q. 177) as follows:

The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a [visible] sign and seal of our regeneration and engrafting into Christ…whereas the Lord’s Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in Him.

The significance of abiding in Christ (as in sanctification) may be seen in verses 3-4 in Paul’s usage of “food” and “drink.” As noted, the food (broma) was manna and the drink (poma) was water. The Bible elsewhere uses these (or similar) words to refer to spiritual feeding and drinking. For example, water has spiritual implications in such passages as Isaiah 55:1 (“Ho! Everyone who thirst, come to the waters”), John 4:13-14 (“Jesus answered and said to her [the woman at the well], ‘Whoever drinks of this water [from the well] will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”), John 7:37-39 (“On the last day, that great day of the feast [of Tabernacles], Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified”), and Revelation 22:17 (And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ And let him who thirsts come. And whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely”). Likewise, in John 6:22-65, the Lord Jesus compares Himself, as the true bread of life (vv. 35, 48), with the manna that Israel ate in the wilderness.

In this latter passage (Jn. 6), the Lord is not to be understood as instituting the Lord’s Supper; this comes later (Lk. 22:14-20). Nevertheless, as Calvin points out, the sacramental implications of feeding on Christ’s body and drinking His blood (vv. 53-55) are clearly present. Calvin writes:

And indeed it would have been foolish and unreasonable to discourse about the Lord’s Supper, before He had instituted it…. And yet, at the same time, I acknowledge that there is nothing said here that is not figuratively represented, and actually bestowed on believers, in the Lord’s Supper; and Christ even intended that the holy Supper should be, as it were, a seal and confirmation of this sermon.[44]

That the food and drink of 1 Corinthians 10:3-4 are typical of the Lord’s Supper is supported, not only by verses 6 and 11 (as already noted), but also by verses 16-22, where Paul gives instructions concerning the Supper (see also 11:17-34). Those who partook of the wilderness meals were partaking (sacramentally) of Jesus Christ as they ate the manna and drank the water, for they were feeding on “that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ” (v. 4).[45]

It is worthy of note that although the Lord’s Supper replaces Passover as a NT sacrament (1 Cor. 5:7-8; Lk. 22:14-20), Passover is not the only Old Covenant feast which was sacramental in import. There is a sense in which it is proper to say that all of the OT feasts/meals had sacramental implications.[46] In Exodus 24:9-11, for example, Israel is involved in a sacramental feast with the Lord, after the “baptism” of the covenant people of God and the covenant law book had occurred (Heb. 9:19-20).

Third, as taught in WCF 29:1 and LBC 30:1, Reformed theology maintains that there is a three-fold aspect (past, present, and future) to the Lord’s Supper:

Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in His church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body (WCF 29:1).

In the “past” aspect, we “do this in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor. 11:24-25), looking back on Christ’s completed cross work, “for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death, [and] the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers.” In the “present” aspect, we feed on Christ for our “spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, [and our] further engagement in and to all duties which [we] owe unto Him.” Here the true believer spiritually partakes of the body and blood of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 10:16-17). And in the “future” aspect, the Supper is “to be observed in His church, unto the end of the world,” as we “proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26), looking forward to the great Messianic banquet feast which will take place at the time of the second advent of Christ and the end of this age (Lk. 22:16; Rev. 19:7-9).

As the Israelites partook of the OT types of the Lord’s Supper, they would be reminded of their (“past”) redemption from slavery in Egypt (Exod. 20:1-2; Deut. 7:8). And as they partook of the sacrificial meals (particularly the Passover), all of which were typical of the Supper, they would have done so awaiting the (“future”) coming of the Messiah—the true Lamb of God who would “take away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29) and the bread of life (Jn. 6:35, 48). And they would have also been “presently” fed by the same Jesus Christ.[47] To this “present” feeding we now turn.

The spiritual feeding that Israel partook of implies the spiritual presence of Christ in the typical Supper. We have already seen that there is a sacramental union that occurs at the institution of the sacraments, wherein the elements take on special relationship with that which they signify (WCF 27:2). Therefore, “the grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used” is conferred “by the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers” (WCF 27:3). This being so, Jesus Christ is “spiritually” present at the covenant feast. The imperfect use of the verb “to be” (en, indicating continual action in the past) in verse 4 highlights this. There was/is a spiritual union between Christ and the elements in the OT typological elements. Therefore, in the wilderness, as truly “spiritual” Israelites took the covenant feast, they were “by faith, made partakers of His [Christ’s] body and blood, with all His benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace” (WSC Q. 96). They sacramentally participated in Christ as they sacramentally ate the manna and drank the water.

This concept is stressed by Paul in verse 4 when he calls the Rock (petra) a “spiritual” (pneumatikos) Rock. Then the apostle uses two definite articles he and ho. He says “the Rock” (he petra) was “the Christ” (ho Christos). Further, the present active participial use of the Greek akoloutheo (“follow”), and the imperfect use of the en (“to be”) are significant. The apostle is saying that “the” Rock, who was “the” Christ, was continually following His covenant people, and continually (in past time) feeding them “spiritual food.” Moreover, calling Christ “the Rock” is a strong assertion of His deity.[48] The OT frequently refers to God as the “Rock” (e.g., Deut. 32:4, 15, 18, 31; 2 Sam. 23:3; Psa. 18:2; Isa. 26:4; 30:29; 44:8; Hab. 1:12). It is further stressed (and strengthened) by the use of the word auto (“same”) that the apostle uses in verses 3-4. It was the “same [auto] spiritual food” and “same [auto] spiritual drink.” As stated by Calvin, the usage of auto here implies that Israel’s sacrament had the “same” virtue and efficacy as does the NT sacrament.[49]

The fact that the rock of Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 20:7-13 is symbolic of the divine Christ is that which makes Moses sin of striking the rock so heinous (Num. 20:11). The Numbers 20 incident occurred at Kadesh, some thirty-eight years after the Exodus 17 event at Rephidim. In this latter event, Moses struck Christ, the Rock (v. 6), and the life-giving water flowed out. But Christ is only to be struck once (1 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 9:28; 10:12-14). Because as the High Priest of His people, He “once” “offered up Himself [as] a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us with God” (WSC Q. 25). Thus, at Kadesh, Moses was only to speak to the rock (Num. 20:8). To strike Christ the Rock again would be (symbolically) to re- crucify Him (as per Heb. 6:4-6). Due to the one-time (symbolic) sacrifice at Rephidim, one need now only to speak to Christ to bring forth the water of life. Moses “blasphemous” sin cost him entrance into the promise land (Num. 20:12).[50]

Fourth, the imperfect use of the verb pino (epinon, “drink”) in verse 4b speaks to the frequency with which Israel partook of the typical Supper. The two aorists, ephagon (“they ate”) and epion (“they drank”), give us a summary record of the historical fact of the incidents; whereas the daily supply of manna for the food (Exod. 16:14-22; Num. 11:4-9), and the imperfect epinon for the drink, have to do with the continual nature of the eating and drinking.[51] Just as the Lord’s Supper is a visible sign and seal of continuing in the covenant of grace, and therefore is to be taken frequently, Israel partook of the typical Lord’s Supper often. Due to the importance and controversial nature of this subject, a more lengthy analysis of the frequency with which the Supper should be taken will be undertaken.

Even though the Reformed churches generally agree on the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, there is a lack of unity when it comes to the frequency of administration.[52] There have been some who teach that since the Supper replaced the Passover (and the other annual OT feasts; Deut. 16:16), like the Passover, it should be administered only once a year. Others maintain that the Supper should be administered only on special occasions when a sermon can be preached on the sacrificial cross work of Jesus Christ and its benefits to believers. The rationale here is that the Lord’s Supper is a visible sermon of Christ crucified; therefore, a message should be preached on that subject. In this way, the table can be properly fenced. A third group would hold to a monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly observation of the sacrament so that the church does not lose the significance of the occasion due to a “too frequent” celebration. There are weaknesses in all of these views.

First, that the first century church observed the Lord’s Supper frequently is beyond cavil. In Acts 2:42-47, we read of the church celebrating the Lord’s Supper (“breaking bread”) every time she meets for worship. Then too, in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, the apostle Paul rebukes the Corinthians for their abuse of this sacrament, thereby revealing that the church is participating in the sacrament on a regular basis. The idea, then, of a “once per year” observance is ruled out altogether. As the WLC (Q. 177) maintains, “the Lord’s Supper is to be administered often.”

Under “The Directory For the Public Worship of God,” the Westminster Assembly concluded that: “The communion, or Supper of the Lord, is frequently to be celebrated; but how often, may be considered and determined by the ministers [teaching elders] and other church-governors [ruling elders] of each congregation.”[53] And as stated in the WCF (21:5), “the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ,” is considered to be a part “of the ordinary religious worship of God,” along with “the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word [of God],” and not just for “special occasions.”

Second, the concept of an occasional observance of the Lord’s Supper, only when a specific message is preached, does disservice to the fact that all of Scripture speaks to Christ. According to the teachings of Christ Himself, whenever any portion of Scripture is faithfully being expounded, Christ is being preached (Lk. 24:27, 44; Jn. 5:39). Undoubtedly, an explanation of the meaning of the Supper, along with an appropriate fencing of the Table, is important. But this may be readily accomplished by the reading and explanation of appropriate passages just prior to the administration of the elements, thus eliminating the need for a specific sermon on the subject every time the Lord’s Supper is administered. (Likewise, if the whole counsel of God is being preached on a regular basis at the church, the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper will be covered on various occasions.)

Third, to aver that one can lose the significance of the Lord’s Supper by partaking of it “too frequently” wrongly assumes a (merely) subjective, rather than an objective benefit in the sacrament. When God’s people subjectively take the Supper, they objectively feed on Christ, spiritually. This, like the study of the Word of God, is an intellectual activity. The Lord’s Supper is a “visible sermon” on the cross work of Christ, and can only be beneficial to the recipient when he understands and applies the scriptural teaching on the subject. This is an objective fact, whether one subjectively “feels” the significance of it or not. When a believer diligently applies himself to the study of Scripture, the Holy Spirit produces spiritual growth in his life; the believer objectively grows in Christ (1 Pet. 2:1-2). Likewise, when the Christian takes the Supper, believing what the Word teaches about it, he objectively “feeds” on Christ, and the Holy Spirit produces spiritual growth.

The three views delineated above are without biblical warrant. But the Bible does not leave us without an answer. According to the witness of Scripture, the church should observe the Lord’s Supper as often as she meets for worship: each Lord’s Day. This is the view taught by John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and John Owen.[54] But most importantly, it is the view espoused by Scripture. A survey of the biblical witness follows.

First, in Acts 2:42-47, Luke gives us an account of the worship practice of the first century church. He lists four main elements: 1) the preaching and teaching of God’s Word; 2) “fellowship,” or the communion of the saints (as the church is gathered together); 3) “the breaking of bread” (this refers to the Lord’s Supper, and not just a fellowship meal; compare v. 46, where the two are distinguished); and 4) “prayer.”

Luke writes that every time Christians gathered together as a church to worship God, they studied the Scriptures, had fellowship, took the Lord’s Supper, and had prayer. There is much to be learned from this passage. John Calvin, commenting on Acts 2:42, wrote that “it became the unvarying rule that no meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper, and almsgiving.”[55] Calvin concluded that the apostolic example should be normative for the church of all ages. Thus, he adhered to a weekly observance of the Supper. If the Word of God is to be preached weekly, there is no reason why we should not also have the “visible sermon” of the Lord’s Supper weekly as well.

Second, in Acts 20:7-12, we read of Paul meeting with the church at Troas. On the first day of the week (Sunday, the Lord’s Day; v. 7), the church came together for worship. The service included the preaching of the Word and the observance of the Lord’s Supper (vv. 7, 11). In verse 7, Luke writes that the church met in order “to break bread,” i.e., to take the Lord’s Supper.[56] These verses strongly argue for a weekly observance of the Supper. It was an essential part of the Sunday worship service led by the apostle Paul.

Third, in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul rebukes the Corinthian church for allowing immorality to continue among the congregation (vv. 1-3). He commands the church to remove (excommunicate) the unrepentant sinner (vv. 4-7), stating that this should be done when the church gathers together for worship (v. 4). The apostle is assuming that the church meets weekly for worship on the Lord’s Day. Paul likens the removal of sin from this church to the purging of leaven that occurred at the Jewish Passover feast (vv. 6-7; compare Exod. 12:8-20). This is necessary, writes the apostle, because Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial aspect of the OT festival in His cross work (v. 7). The NT sacrifice has replaced the Old. Therefore, the Corinthians are to celebrate the Lord’s Supper after, and only after, dealing with the sin (“leaven”) in the church (v. 8). Once this sin has been removed, says Paul, the members are then to “keep the feast [Lord’s Supper]…with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (v. 8).[57] That which must be noticed here is that Paul is not only assuming a weekly Lord’s Day worship service (v. 4), he is also assuming a weekly partaking of the Lord’s Supper during the service (v. 8). In the mind of Paul, the Lord’s Supper was a necessary and important part of biblical worship on the Lord’s Day.

Fourth, in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul is instructing the church on the Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians have been abusing the privilege of the sacrament. Paul rebukes them for their lack of unity and for their selfish motives (vv. 17-22). Once again, the apostle is assuming both a weekly worship service (v. 18), and a weekly celebration of the Supper during the service (v. 20). According to John Calvin, this passage evidences the fact that Paul believed in a weekly Lord’s Supper. Writes Calvin, “That this [a weekly participation in the Lord’s Supper] was the established order among the Corinthians also, we can safely infer from Paul (confirm 1 Corinthians 11:20). And it remained in use for many centuries after.”[58]

Fifth, in John 6, Jesus, by way of analogy, likens His flesh to Israel’s manna in the wilderness (vv. 26-58). Just as Israel fed on physical bread, the true Israel (the church of Jesus Christ) spiritually feeds on Christ: the Bread of life (vv. 35, 48). Those who belong to Christ partake of His flesh and blood, and have eternal life (vv. 53-58).

As Calvin points out, and as we have already noted, even though Jesus is not instituting the Lord’s Supper in John 6, nevertheless, the passage does give us instruction on the subject.[59] In the words of Christ, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me” (vv. 56-57). Abiding in Christ is essential to eternal life (see Jn. 15:1-8). And this is what the Lord’s Supper “visibly” signifies and seals. As seen, the Supper is a covenant sign and seal, not only of Christ’s cross work, but also of one’s abiding in covenant with Him. Therefore, the more one “by faith” feeds on Christ at the Supper, the more one grows in Him. As stated in the WLC (Q. 170):

As the body and blood of Christ…are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver…so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ…in a spiritual manner…while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death.

This strongly argues for a weekly observance of the Supper.

The NT witness seems clear. A weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper was the practice of the first century church. The standard was established by the apostles themselves. This, it would seem, is an implicit directive. Calvin, Owen, and Edwards are correct: the apostolic standard should be normative for the church of all ages.

Fifth, “all” Israel ate the covenant feast. Just as “all” were baptized, so too “all” partook of the Supper. We have already noted this fact, but it is mentioned again to elucidate further the fact that those who are baptized are also those who are to partake of the Supper. The sacraments go together. And as also seen, those who were baptized and those who ate the covenant feast were the “redeemed” of Israel. This was a typologically redeemed community, all of whom were brought out of Egypt by God “to serve” Him (Exod. 8:1; 9:1). Under the New Covenant, the same principle remains intact. Those who are to be baptized and those who are to partake of the Lord’s Supper are those who are “redeemed.” Again, there is no biblical warrant for a two-tiered church membership, consisting of “non-communicant” and “communicant” members.

Sixth, even though “all” ate the spiritual food, not all spiritually benefited from it. The five uses of pantes in verses 1-4 is seen in stark contrast to the “most of them” in verse 5. “All” of Israel was redeemed out of slavery under Pharaoh (Deut. 7:8), but “with most of them God was not well pleased.” In the words of Vincent, “all enjoyed the privileges, but few improved them.”[60] Jude 5 is an inspired commentary on this: “But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” As with baptism, so also with the Lord’s Supper, the cursing and blessing motif is noticeable. The covenant promises are for God’s people only. As taught in the WCF (29:8), “Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament [the Lord’s Supper]: yet they receive not the thing signified thereby, but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord to their own damnation.”

Conclusion

In our study of the sacramental implications of 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, we have seen that the apostle Paul states that all members of Israel, the “church under age” (WCF 19:3), were “typologically” baptized into a covenantal relationship with God, and all partook of the “typological” covenantal feast as they fed upon the Lord Jesus Christ. There is an obvious reference here to the two NT sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Paul is teaching that the entire Old Covenant community, as a typologically redeemed people, actually participated in these two covenant “visible” signs and seals, which, as we have recognized from a detailed study, “were, for substance, the same with the New” (WCF 27:5).

If this was true of OT Israel, then, afortiori, how much more so should it be true of NT Israel—the church of the Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 6:16)? The New Covenant antitype is greater than the Old Covenant type; therefore, that which was symbolically carried out in the Old should be fully practiced in the New. The fact that “all” Israel, as a “typologically” redeemed community, partook of both sacraments is prima facie evidence that this should likewise be the case in the richer NT era. Good covenant theology would denounce the concept of non-communicant and communicant church membership. “All” of God’s “redeemed” people are to partake of “all” of God’s covenant promises. As taught in The Shorter Catechism: A Baptist Version (Q. 98-99), “The sacraments of the New Covenant are baptism and the Lord’s Supper…. [and] baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation…only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of His Spirit in those who by faith receive them.”[61]

Soli Deo Gloria!

Notes

1. L. Goppelt, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972, 1988), VIII:246-59; John Calvin, Commentaries, Volumes I-XXII (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:1-11; and Marvin R. Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament, Volumes I-IV (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing Company, n.d.), III:238-42.
2. William Hendriksen, Survey of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 333-38; Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958, 1983), 15-33. This author has depended a great deal on these two works for this “overview.”
3. All references to the Westminster Standards, comprised of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, are from Westminster Confession of Faith (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994). The English has been modernized.
4. All references to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 are from Things Most Surely Believed Among Us (Sterling, VA: GAM Publications, n.d.). The English has been modernized.
5. The strong adversative alla (“But”) in v. 5 emphasizes this.
6. Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1975, 1991), 151. For further confirmation that the purpose of 1 Cor. 10:1-5 is to warn the church against laxity in spiritual matters, particularly idolatry, see: Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, edited by Robert Frew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, n.d.), Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:1-5; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of 1 and 2 Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:1-5; Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, F. F. Bruce, general editor, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 441-50; Calvin, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:1-5; Geoffrey B. Wilson, 1 Corinthians (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1978), 139; and Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, “1 Corinthians,” The Biblical Expositor, edited by Carl F. H. Henry (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1960), III:270-71.
7. Hughes, “1 Corinthians,” 270.
8. In Luke 9:31 we read that Moses and Elijah were talking with Christ about His “decease which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.” The word translated “decease” here is the Greek word exodus.
9. Keith A. Mathison, From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing Company, 2009), 381, 390.
10. Calvin, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:1-5.
11. Lenski, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:1-5.
12. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 444.
13. Kenneth G. Talbot, Confirming Our Faith: A Reformed Covenantal Theology of the Sacraments (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009), 75-81.
14. David Chilton, “An Objective Theology of the Covenant,” Covenant Renewal (March, 1988), 2. For more on “the one and the many” issue, see R. J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1971).
15. Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 213.
16. Lenski, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:1.
17. Charles Hodge, A Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974, 1988), 170-71; Calvin, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:1-2; Clark, First Corinthians, 152.
18. Wilson, 1 Corinthians, 140. Wilson quotes A. R. Fausset here with approval.
19. Lenski, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:1-2; Hodge, A Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, 170-71; Calvin, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:1-2. For a similar use of the word “fathers” in the Pauline corpus, see Rom. 9:5; 11:28; 15:8; see also Heb. 1:1; 3:9; 8:9.
20. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 444.
21. Westminster Confession of Faith (27:1).
22. Lenski, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:2. Gordon Fee, citing R. N. Longenecker and A. J. Bandstra, notes that the Jewish rabbis saw the Red Sea crossing as analogous to proselyte baptism, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 444.
23. Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), 68-69; Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 443-46 (Fee notes that Origen, H. Conzelmann, and J. D. G. Dunn hold the “cloud” view of the Holy Spirit); Calvin, Commentary on Exod. 14:19-21; John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments (Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), VIII:669-671, 698l; Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 15, Notes on Scripture, edited by Stephen J. Stein (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 135-40. This writer tends to see the Holy Spirit symbolized by the glory-cloud.
24. Lenski, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:2.
25. Kline, By Oath Consigned, 69.
26. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973, 1981), 208-09; Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, VII:25; Kline, By Oath Consigned, 57-58.
27. Even Bruce Metzger, an advocate of the Critical Text, admits that ebaptisanto, is the better reading here; see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971, 1975), 559.
28. Wilson, 1 Corinthians, 140; see also G. G. Findlay, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, edited by Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:1-2.
29. It is more than probable that in v. 1, the imperfect esan, in all “were” under the cloud, refers to the “continual watchcare” exercised by the Spirit over Israel; whereas the aorist dielthon, in all “passed through” the sea, speaks to the one time Exodus crossing. Then in v. 2, we have the one time event of Israel’s baptism, also with an aorist.
30. Edwards, Works, 15:139-40.
31. Clark, First Corinthians, 152.
32. Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, VIII:671.
33. Samuel E. Waldron, 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 1989, 2005), 357-59.
34. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), 183-84.
35. Leonard J. Coppes, Daddy, May I Take Communion?: Paedocommunion vs. the Bible (Thornton, CO: Leonard J. Coppes, 1988), 159. Dr. Coppes, after claiming that the sacraments should go together, inconsistently goes on to affirm paedobaptism while at the same time denouncing paedocommunion.
36. Lenski, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:2.
37. Jude 9 speaks of Michael the archangel disputing “about the body of Moses.” Some commentators believe that the phrase “body of Moses” refers to Israel, the “church under age” (WCF 19:3), under her covenant head Moses, whereas the New Covenant church is Christ’s body and He is her head (Col. 1:18). This is the view of Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 15, edited by Harry S. Stout, Notes on Scripture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 80. Also Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 1519, mention this as a plausible interpretation of the phrase the “body of Moses”; as does Thomas Manton, A Commentary on Jude (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1658, 1989), 242. If such is the case, and there is much to commend this view, then this is another example of Moses as the type and Jesus Christ as the great antitype.
38. James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 598-601.
39. Lenski, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:3.
40. Calvin, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:3.
41. Hodge, A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians, 173; Barnes, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:3.
42. The Revised Standard Version translation in vv. 3-4 reads “supernatural food” and “supernatural drink.”
43. Goppelt, TDNT, VI:146.
44. Calvin, Commentary on John 6:54.
45. See Coppes, Daddy May I Take Communion?: Paedocommunion vs. the Bible, 14-16, 86-87.
46. Coppes, Daddy May I Take Communion?: Paedocommunion vs. the Bible, 65-91; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volumes I & II, John T. McNeill, editor, translated by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), IV:14:20-21.
47. Hodge, I & II Corinthians, 229-230.
48. Morris, 1 Corinthians, 141-42; Clark, 1 Corinthians, 153.
49. Calvin, Commentary on 1 Cor. 10:3.
50. Leon J. Wood, A Survey of Israel’s History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), 161n.
51. Lenski, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:4; Findlay, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:3-4.
52. Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 957-58.
53. Westminster Confession of Faith, 384.
54. See Calvin, Institutes IV:17:44; Jonathan Edwards, Works, edited by Edward Hickman (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1984), I:cxxiii; and John Owen, Works, edited by William H. Goold (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), XV:512. It is also worthy of note that the Didache (c. A.D. 70-110), or “The Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles,” strongly indicates that the apostles believed that the Supper should be observed every Lord’s Day. In Section 14 we read, “On the Lord’s own day gather together and break bread [i.e., take the Lord’s Supper] and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.”
55. Calvin, Institutes IV:17:44.
56. The verb klasai (to break) is an infinitive of purpose, instructing us that the purpose of the gathering was “to break bread.” That is, they gathered for a worship service in order that they may take the Lord’s Supper together. Thus, the Lord’s Supper was an integral part of the service.
57. That 1 Cor. 5:8 refers to the Lord’s Supper, see Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, VIII:631, and Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 25, Sermons and Discourses 1743-1758, edited by Wilson H. Kimnach (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006), 589.
58. Calvin, Institutes IV:17:44.
59. John Calvin, Commentary on John 6:55-56.
60. Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament, III:238.
61. The Shorter Catechism: A Baptist Version (Avinger, TX: Simpson Publishing Company, 2003).