People seem to like a Sugardaddy God. He views the world with all the warm-fuzzies that they have and then gives them pizza and ice-cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. When people suffer injustice the perpetrator should be punished by God. When they do misguided things, there is to be no talk of evil or sin, just a self-help chat on how to become a lovelier me. The God of the Old Testament is harsh an cruel in the eyes of many. The God of the New Testament is lovely and fuzzy, talks about lambs a lot, and wants group hugs and group therapy.
Fortunately God does not live by our self-satisfied, weak, and manipulative ideas. He wants the best for us and his world. He wanted the best for His people Israel. There is continuity between the God of the Old and New Testaments. God does not have a personality disorder. Is your God the God of the Old and New Testament?
1 Corinthians 10:1-5
1For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.
Questions
- Which two images, connected with water, were the Israelites baptized into?
- The Israelites were baptized through water and into whom?
- Who was the rock that traveled with them?
- What was left scattered in the desert?
- How might disobedient people today need to take note of a righteous, good, all-powerful God?
Note: Rabbi’s from Paul’s time saw that a rock was in the Israelites Exodus story at its start and finish. They therefore concluded that it was the same portable, potable rock. This idea is reflected in the spiritual reality that te eternal Christ was with them.
Going Deeper
Browse some of the earlier postings from Exodus or Numbers.
Plymothian 
1) In Paul’s eyes, they were baptized by the cloud/fog used by “the angel of God” (מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים) to hide them from the Egyptians and by the parted sea.
2) Interesting question! Does Paul intend to say that they were baptized back into the faith of Abraham, or does he mean that they were baptized into the faith of a still-to-come Christ/messiah? This distinction is important for several reasons, not the least of them having to do with where the souls of the ancestral dead end up.
When early Christian missionaries started making headway into the Germanic tribes, one of the major stumbling blocks that arose was the disposition of the previously buried ancestral dead. Germanic tribes practiced both polytheism and a ritualized form of ancestral worship (or, at the least, extreme ancestor-respect). Calumny heaped on one’s parents or grandparents amounted to unforgivable insult to oneself or one’s reputation. Since early Church doctrine held that only the baptized were Saved, the implication was that those who died before receiving the Word were damned to hell (at worst) or stuck in Limbo (at best). In the end, and in the name of political expediency, the missionary priests were granted dispensation to baptize the tribal ancestors posthumously, thereby Saving their souls and clearing a major cultural hurdle to acceptance of the new religion.
Now, Judaism doesn’t recognize ancestor worship, but no-one really wants to believe that their ancestors, whether recently dead, long dead, or forgotten dead, are suffering in hell or Limbo. Was this section of Paul’s letter intended to 1) establish continuity (the Israelites were baptized, just as Christians are today), or 2) allay fear and trepidation that embracing Christ meant abandoning your ancestors?
[More to follow.]
I believe that this part of Paul’s rhetoric is a reflection of an unfolding, superintended plan. So, the facts of history that you mention are not something I would question. Of course, your questions regard interpretation of those facts. I believe that from the Jewish perspective, the Jewish people of Moses’ time were baptized into a faith that was incompletely revealed. The progressive revelation of spiritual realities behind events shows that all people who have been redeemed in any age have been redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ. Also, the unfolding that Christ is eternal allows for him to be present with Abraham, Moses or Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
Even though the fact that the ancestors were redeemed through their response to God’s partial revelation would have allayed some fears and also removed some road blocks, both these results would be incidental if there was a supernatural intelligence directing a linear and all encompassing plan.
Great questions (as I would expect, though).
[Continued]
3) In keeping with Paul’s theme of a continuous, eternal Christ, the rock is undoubtedly supposed to be Christ.
4) Again, presumably, the bodies of the Israelites who failed in their devotion to Yahweh.
5) Paul implies that those who fail to obey God will die, and their bodies will be scattered over the desert.
Questions for you: 1) What’s the non-Paulian perspective on the Eternal Christ? Is it necessary to the narrative that a metaphorical Christ accompany the Israelites out of Egypt? Could Moses be seen as a Christ-like figure since he, too, makes a Covenant with God and then makes a sacrifice (never enters the Promised Land)?
2) What does Paul’s implied punishment by God of the disobedient mean for the evangelical Christian? If God will punish, is that not sufficient? Should not Christians, like the Israelites of Exodus, live their own lives in accordance with God’s laws (and enforce said laws within the bounds of their strictly Christian communities) and leave it to God to punish the disobedient?
3) Who is Paul’s audience in this first letter to the Corinthians? Is this a community that needs to be brought into the fold or a community of believers seeking guidance?
1) The original recipients of the Penteteuch, as you point out, would have had no Pauline theology. They would not have had a concept of an eternal Christ and would have just seen a rock as God’s provision. However, even before baptism, the passing of a people through water would have had great symbolic significance. In ancient semitic culture water could represent the chaotic forces of untamed nature, they could be the dwelling place of gods, they could be a purifying force. Someone who leads the people through water would be a saviour of sorts. He would therfore be a type of Christ.
2) Yes, Christians should not judge (condemn) people for their life choices. However they are to judge (discern) different choices that people make. The latter form of judge is something that they should do for any actions, including their own. The results of actions are that if you show no improvement over time they are an indicator that a person is lost and should be treated so. A lost person should be loved and not hated as many evangelicals seem to do with those that they consider lost today. Yes, I agree, Christians should attempt to live morally upright lives in accordance with God’s law. Then they should not fear punishment, they should accept difficult times as discipline. Ultimately a mature Christian would willingly enter into anguish and suffering for those who need help. I don’t think western Christianity has maintained this line. God tends to give one a smug self-satisfaction in the west, pay the bills, and smite enemies rather than die for them.
3) Community of believers seeking guidance.
Great questions, Erik. Although, I am sure we would see these ideas quite differently, you seem to show respect for the historical significance the ideas have. Have you posted any of your thoughts about life, the universe, and everything recently?
Thank you, Peter. As always, I enjoy your thoughtful perspective on your faith. And while Grace remains an unrevealed Mystery to me (no road to Damascus yet, but never give up hope), I am pleased to see that the respect I feel has been conveyed; these are not my ways, but you are, and always will be, my good friend.
Unfortunately, no, I haven’t found impetus to put thought to photons recently. Remind me again some other time, and I’ll be happy to share why.
Take care,
I enjoy our friendship. Miss the debates in Pumpkin.