Introduction.

Pope Pius XII, in his Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, [6] pointed out that “it is the duty of the exegete to lay hold, so to speak, with the greatest care and reverence of the very least expressions which, under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, have flowed from the pen of the sacred writer, so as to arrive at a deeper and fuller knowledge of his meaning. Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical […] and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply.” And then about the texts of the Bible he wrote: “ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern.”

The modern development of information technology [7] has brought new opportunities to carry out the task set by the Pope to exegetes. In this article, therefore, in obedience to the teaching of the Church, one will use the BibleWorks 6.0 computer program [8] to analyze an essential passage from The First Letter to the Corinthians, leading to a precise reading of it.

1.1. The literary structure of 1Cor 10:1-2.

In 1Cor 10:1-2, the apostle wrote thus:

0 οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν

1 πάντες ὑπὸ τὴν νεφέλην ἦσαν

2 καὶ πάντες διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης διῆλθον

3 καὶ πάντες εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν ἐβαπτίσθησαν

                                    ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ καὶ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ

0 our fathers

1 all under the cloud were

2 and all through the sea passed

3 and all in Moses were immersed

                                    in the cloud and in the sea.

1.2. Computer analysis of the grammatical structure of 1Cor 10:1.

In 1Cor 10:1, that is, in the first sentence (parts 0+1+2) of the analyzed passage, the first of the verbs – ἦσαν (remained) – is in the imperfect of the indicative mood, [9] so it focuses the reader’s attention on the duration of the action which took place in the past: the fathers were remaining under the cloud from the moment they left Egypt after eating the Passover and were walking as far as the Red Sea – cf. Ex 13:17-14:31.

In this sentence, the second of the verbs, διῆλθον (passed), is in the aorist of the indicative mood, [10] and thus expresses the very fact of the fathers’ passage through the Red Sea (cf. Ex 14:15-31), without focusing the reader’s attention on its duration.

It is worth analyzing precisely what logic this sentence has, that is, what is the relation between the act expressed by the first predicate and the act expressed by the second predicate.

In order to explore this logic – the logic of sentences in which the predicate of the first clause is in the indicative mood and of the second in the aorist, whereby these clauses are linked by καὶ – a research schema was built in BibleWorks 6.0, a so-called query: a query to the BGM database, that is, to BibleWorks’ Greek Morphology database:

The following requirements are assumed to be met in the resulting string of keywords, separated by up to any ten words:

• the first word is to be any verb in the imperfective of the indicative: *–via*,
• the second word has to be between 0 and 10 words from the first word: btn. 0 to 10
• the second word has to be a conjunction καὶ: και-*
• The third word has to be between 0 and 10 words from the second word: btn. 0 to 10
• the third word is to be any verb in the aorist of the indicative: *–via*,
• the first and third words must agree in kind, person, and number: All words agree V – Gender, Person, Number

After giving the Go command, the result is a set containing a total of 533 sentences, of which 442 are from the Septuagint and 91 from the New Testament. Reading of these sentences, however, forces a significant number of them to be removed from the result set, as they do not meet one more requirement: both verbs are to refer to the same subject – for this is the case in 1Cor 10:1-2: the fathers were (under the cloud), the fathers passed (through the sea). This requirement cannot be inserted into the query in BibleWorks 6.0.

Based on such selected part of the sentences of the collection, it turned out that: in this grammatical construction given by St. Paul to the verse 1Cor 10:1, the first clause describes an act/state preceding the undertaking of the act expressed by the second clause, with the first state/act may also continue while the second act is being performed.

It is worth quoting most of these sentences to ground yourself in the conviction that this is indeed the case:

Based on analyses – presented here – of the logic of sentences with the same grammatical structure as in 1Cor 10:1, we can proceed to the analysis of this sentence. 1Cor 10:1 is a compound sentence describing two successive events (the fathers were going under the cloud and then passed through the sea) rather than one event composed of two aspects (the fathers, being under the cloud, passed through the sea). The apostle does not limit himself to saying that fathers were under the cloud during their going through the sea. The apostle points out that before the fathers reached the place of crossing the sea, they were already going under the cloud, and then they crossed the sea. This crossing also was accompanied by God’s presence, manifesting itself through the pillar of fire/cloud. In 1Cor 10:1-2, the term “under the cloud” means that it was under the guidance of God, leading them three days through the sign of pillar of cloud by day and the sign of pillar of fire by night – according to Ex 12:37; 13:20; 14:2; 15:22ff, the Israelite were going to the sea for three days.

1.3. The final remarks about 1Cor 10:1.

If the apostle had wished to indicate in 1Cor 10:1 that he was only writing here about the passing of the fathers with their simultaneous remaining under the cloud, he would have used verbs in the same grammatical tense to denote both simultaneous acts. Instead of the form διῆλθον as the aorist of the verb διέρχομαι (to pass), he would have used διήρχοντο, i.e., the imperfect of the indicative mood of the same verb διέρχομαι, as it is in Lk 9:6 and Acts 15:3.

In St. Paul, we can find examples [11] of this very use of two verbs in the imperfect:

There are other places in the New Testament as well, such as:

In interpreting the first sentence of 1Cor 10:1-2, therefore, we must not overlook the significance of that first stage of the exodus from Egypt, when Israel’s fathers had not yet been passing through the Red sea but were already under God’s cloud – going towards the sea, they were walking under the leadership of the Lord visible in the sign of the cloud.

While it would seem that there is no more important event than the crossing through the Red Sea, the apostle points out that Israelites’ passing from the place of their sojourn in Egypt to sea under the leadership of the Lord revealing Himself in the sign of pillar of cloud or fire (cf. Ex 13:21) is just as important as the subsequent passing between the divided waters of the sea, the passing which Israelites made in the presence of the Lord revealing Himself in the sign of the pillar of fire and of cloud (cf. Ex 14:19-20. 24).

One should note that the same thought is confirmed by the structure of 1Cor 10:1-2 presented above, in which each of the parts 1, 2, 3 ends with a predicate, and the final “in the cloud and in the sea” placed at the very end – and therefore easy to notice – not only plays the role of an adverbial of place for the third part but at the same time emphatically sums up the content of each of the three parts:

0 our fathers

1 all under the cloud were

2 and all through the sea passed

3 and all in Moses were immersed

                                    in the cloud and in the sea.

1.4. The meaning of 1Cor 10:2 as a part of 1Cor 10:1-2.

The second verse of 1Cor 10:1-2 – part 3 in the above schema – begins in the same way as the second part of the first sentence, i.e., with καὶ πάντες (and all), with the subject here still being “our fathers,” mentioned in part 0.

Predicate ἐβαπτίσθησαν – were immersed – is in the aorist of the indicative, and thus focuses the reader’s attention on the very fact of immersion into Moses, while the adverbial of place, ending this sentence, emphases that the immersion took place while the Israelites were under the cloud and while they were passing through the sea. It is worth noting that for 1Cor 10:2, there are two other versions: [12] it is either ἐβαπτίσαντο (they immersed themselves – the middle aorist of the indicative) or ἐβαπτίζοντο (they were immersing themselves – the imperfect of the indicative). The last version indicates that the act of immersion into Moses was taking place over a more extended time, taking place in the cloud and the sea. However, this does not significantly change the meaning of the whole consisting of the first two sentences of 1Cor 10.

Together, then, the two sentences indicate that the immersion of the Israelites into Moses, baptizing them into Moses, took place as they were passing under the Lord’s leadership from the place of eating the Passover lamb to the sea and across the sea to the other side of it.

Contrary to the reader’s first impression, especially the one directed towards an allegorical reading of this passage, [13] this baptism/immersion into Moses is connected not only with water, not only with passing through water. [14] Indeed, in the first two verses of 1Cor 10, St. Paul teaches that this immersion into Moses occurred in passing into the sea and through it.

 Introduction.

1Cor 10:1-2 discusses the passage of the Israelites from the place of Passover supper to and through the sea. Subsequent verses of 1Cor 10 discuss different stages of the Exodus from Egypt: the ones after crossing the sea. Nevertheless, the apostle states in them twice (1Cor 10:6.11) that the Old Testament events, which he described in chapter 10, should be read according to typological thinking.

In 1Cor 10:11, the apostle wrote: “And this typologically (τυπικῶς [15]) happened to them, and is written for the instruction of us, upon whom the end of the ages has come.”

From the beginning to the present day, the Church appreciates the value of typology. Pope Benedict XVI taught: [16] “From apostolic times and in her living Tradition, the Church has stressed the unity of God’s plan in the two Testaments through the use of typology; this procedure is in no way arbitrary, but is intrinsic to the events related in the sacred text and thus involves the whole of Scripture. Typology «discerns in God’s works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of His incarnate Son» (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 128).

So what happened in passage to sea and through it – immersion of Israel into Moses – one should read as typological announcement and explanation of the immersion of the New Israel into Christ. Therefore, we cannot interpret the text 1Cor 10:1-2 in the key of some arbitrary – that is, not given by the inspired author – an allegory for presenting the validity of the sacrament of baptism. We should perceive and understand the typology given here by God, which allows us to deeply enquire into God’s salvific plan regarding the meaning of this immersion into Moses as an announcement and explanation of the immersion into Christ and the place where this immersion into Christ takes place. A typological reading makes it possible to understand more fully an Old Testament event, but also conversely, an Old Testament event may occur – according to God’s plan – as being necessary/useful for understanding what is written in the New. [17] It is important, however, that in this method of studying Bible, one should adhere strictly to what the text itself says so as not to descend into the subjectivity of “allegorizing,” that is, seeing in almost every detail of the Old Testament a foreshadowing of the counterpart in the New Testament. [18]

To understand the typology of immersion into Moses – immersion into Christ, it is necessary to know what immersion into Christ is in the light of the New Testament, but at the same time to exactly read what took place in Israel’s passage from the place of eating the Passover to the sea and its other side.

2.1. The passage of the Israelites through the sea in light of Ex 1-18 and Gen 15:17.

As one proved, [19] the passage of the Israelites between the parted waters of the sea was an irrevocable act of covenant-making – this passage was the same way of covenant-making as when God made a covenant with Abram: [20] God did it in the night, God passed between the halves of animals, God did it in two signs:

“When the sun had set, and it was dark, there appeared a smoking brazier and a flaming torch, which passed between those pieces” (Gen 15:17).

The passage of the Israelites also took place in darkness; they passed between the halves of the sea, about which the prophet Isaiah (51:9-10) revealed that it acted as Rahab, i. e., the great beast that God cut in half. [21] Thus, passing between the halves of the sea-Rahab during the Exodus is the same situation as Gen 15:17 describes. As we can read the explanation in Gen 15:18: “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.”

Furthermore, the pillar of fire and cloud, that is, the signs of God passing between the halves of this Rahab, were visually the same as in Gen 15:17.

What is more, the Exodus of Israelites, described in four successive parts of Ex 6:2-15:21 (6:2-11:10; 12:1-13:16; 13:17-14:31; 15:1-21), was a four-part ancient quasi-liturgical procedure for making a covenant between rulers of two states.

Moreover, Ex 1-18 is a six-part tractate of this covenant, namely:

• At the beginning (Ex 1:1-6:1), it has a historical prologue – it describes the relationship between the two parties that were between them before the day the covenant-making procedure began.
• In the middle, it describes the fulfillment of this four-part procedure.
• At the end, it has an epilogue (Ex 15:22-18:27) – it describes the rules of the daily life of the contracting parties, especially the weaker partner. Thus, it describes the regulations concerning the Sabbath for the Lord and the establishment of judges for Israel by Moses, with God’s approval. God’s role as suzerain is also evident, namely in His care for His people: He was providing them with food (manna, quail), water, and victory over their enemies.

A close examination of the structure of Ex 1-18 shows that the act of covenant-making itself is described in 13:17-14:31. It means that this act consists not only in passing through the sea but also in passing from Egypt to sea: the irrevocable act of covenant-making consisted in passing from the place of eating Passover lamb to the sea and between its divided waters.

The very same part of Israel’s way from Egypt, which Ex 13:17-14:31 describes, was typologically presented by the apostle Paul. He wrote about the fathers of Israel in 1Cor 10:1-2 that they were all immersed in Moses in the cloud and in the sea, thus during the passage from the place of eating the lamb to the sea and between the divided waters of the sea to its other side. One must infer from it that St. Paul knew the division of Ex 1-18 into six pericopes – it is possible because the four-part structure of the Passover liturgy is built on this structure, [22] and Paul was educated by Gamaliel, one of the eminent teachers of the Law in the first century. What is more, he must have known that Ex 13:17-14:31 is the pericope of the immersion into Moses and fulfillment of an irrevocable act of covenant-making between God and Israel through this tremendous effort of cooperation with Him, to which only he – Moses – was engaging all of himself.

2.2. Immersion into Christ in the teaching of St. Paul.

In St. Paul’s teaching, immersion into Christ is an immersion into His death, a burial with Him. It is, therefore, a spiritual, absolutely genuine union with Christ in His paschal passage through the Abyss of death to new life in the Resurrection, participation with Him in this passage:

Immersion into Christ also means incorporation into His Body (cf. Eph 1:22-23), which is the Church, and consequently being given to drink of the same Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit:

Jesus made a New Covenant with God not only by His act of dying (Jesus’ death was an act of entering into Abyss, i.e., the place where the dead were under the power of the devil, who was then the ruler of this world – cf. John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Acts 2:27,31; Rom 10:6-7; 1Pet 3:19-20), but also by passing through Abyss connected with His victorious battle against the devil. [23] It was the passage through the darkness of Abyss into the light of His Resurrection, which God bestowed on Him in response to His sacrifice, which was the act of making an eternal covenant: “The God of peace […] brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep by the blood of the eternal covenant, our Lord Jesus” (Heb 13:20).

Based on cited texts, it is evident that St. Paul understands the immersion into Christ as an immersion into His passing through death, which is at the same time the conclusion of the New Covenant. The apostle, however, does not give – what can be read in St. John’s Gospel only – that the passage of Jesus from Cenacle to Golgotha and from it to Abyss and through it is the place of the New Covenant conclusion, analogous to the conclusion of the covenant of God and Israel in their passage from Cenacle of Passover in Egypt to sea and through to its other side.

2.3. The Gospel of St. John about Jesus’ passage from the Cenacle to Golgotha and through the Abyss of death.

Careful analyses [24] of the Gospel of St. John show that it has a six-element literary structure, the same as the Book of Exodus 1-18, namely:

• At the beginning is the Prologue (Jn 1:1-18)
• In the middle are four interior pericopes (Jn 1:19-12:50; 13:1-17:26; 18:1-19:42; 20:1-31).
• At the end is the Epilogue (Jn 21:1-25).

We showed in earlier works that four successive stages of Jesus’ life – presented by the four successive internal pericopes of Jn 1:19-20:31 – are His four-stage Exodus from this world to eternity. Based on the thesis proven in earlier works also that Ex 1-18 is a six-element tractate of a four-stage covenant-making ceremony between God and Israel, we can see that Jesus’ entire life is analogous to that Exodus – it is the realization of the successive four elements of the New Covenant ceremony. It means that the Gospel of John is a six-element tractate of New Covenant, and its pericopes are analogous to those of Ex 1-18. It follows from this key statement that the Pericope of Jesus’ passion and death (Jn 18-19) describes Jesus’ irrevocable act of covenant-making, accomplished by His passage from the Cenacle of Eucharist to Golgotha and from Golgotha to Abyss of death and between its darkness to the light of Resurrection day. Jn 18-19 as the fourth pericope of John’s Gospel is analogous to the fourth pericope of the Book of Exodus (13:17-14:31), describing the act of the covenant-making between God and Israel during their passage from the Cenacle of Passover in Egypt to the Abyss-sea and between its divided waters to the morning of Israel’s Resurrection on the other side of the sea.

2.4. The scope of St. Paul’s warning to Christians in the typology of immersion into Moses / immersion into Christ.

One cannot limit the typology of immersion to the sacrament of baptism, which is widely known as an immersion into Christ’s death. Eucharist is also such an immersion since it makes-present the conclusion of the covenant in the Blood of Jesus.

By the power of this typology, St. Paul in 1Cor 10 warns Christians against imitating Israel in evil: [25] although Israel received great blessings from God, including immersion in Moses (i.e., making a covenant with God through Moses’ extraordinary determination to cooperate with Him), being fed with heavenly manna and water from the rock, they gave themselves over to idolatrous pleasures of eating and drinking (cf. 1Cor 10:7) and worshiping the calf, which took place after receiving such great gifts (cf. Ex 32:1-23)!

The apostle points out that Christians, who not only by baptism but also by Eucharist are immersed into Christ, into the New Covenant-making procedure, and who are being fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, cannot imitate Israel in idolatry, in indulging in such pleasures (cf. 1Cor 10:16.21) after having received such great gifts.

Paul’s teachings flow from the typological relationship between immersion into Moses and immersion into Christ, and thus between immersion into death of Moses / death of Jesus, between immersion into covenant-making through the passage of Moses/Jesus from Cenacle of Passover/Eucharist into Abyss and through it.

These typological teachings, which Paul began in 1Cor 10, he develops in the following chapters with regard to the Eucharist itself, rebuking the Corinthians first for the fact that during the Eucharistic gatherings they, like the Israelites of old, indulge in the pleasures of eating and drinking (cf. 1Cor 11:22) and no longer come to the eating of the Body and Blood of the Lord (11:20: οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν). [26]

Then the apostle, in strong words of warning, pointed out that eternal damnation threatens those who eat the Body and Blood of the Lord without perceiving the difference between Eucharistic and ordinary bread (1Cor 11:29: ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα). Although commentators usually see in these words an exhortation to come to the Lord’s Table in a state without grave sin, St. Paul’s thought, presented here and in 1Cor 12-15, is richer: it is necessary to eat the Bread and drink the Wine as the Body and Blood of Christ, that is, to eat with the consciousness of participating in the Lord’s death, and this should be expressed both in devout participation in the Eucharist and in communion with Christ on His paschal way through the Abyss of death until He comes to those gathered as the Risen Lord, bestowing the Holy Spirit, enabling believers to live a genuinely new life – something the Law of the Old Covenant was incapable of providing. Believers should be aware that giving them the Holy Spirit is the fruit of Jesus’ passion, the Father’s response to the Covenant made in the Blood of Christ, but also the fruit of their participation in that passion, their conscious immersion in Jesus.

One should note that pious Jews to this day do not end the annual Passover liturgy celebration with the conclusion of the prayers contained in the “Passover Haggadah.” “Passover Haggadah” is for them what the Missal [27] is for Christians. They continue until morning to pray  [28] – because the fathers came out of the Abyss of waters in the morning (cf. Ex 14:24-31). In the same way, Christians are called by St. Paul to abide in prayer after the end of Eucharist – because Christ will come to them, will make present the moment of His return from the Abyss to the Upper Room (cf. Jn 20:19-23), from which He went out, ending in such a way the Eucharist (cf. Jn 18:1).

The Jews are called by Tradition [29] not to hold any revelry after Passover but rather to remain in prayer until morning. Following St. Paul, one must understand it as a call to conscious participation in the covenant-making by immersing oneself in Moses in his passage from the place of eating Passover to the other side of the sea Abyss. Similarly, St. Paul urges Christians to, having perceived a warning in the miseries of Israel caused by their indulgence in carnal pleasures after passing through the Abyss of the sea, abide on prayer in co-participation in Jesus’ passing through the Abyss of death until He comes to them.

The celebration of Passover / Eucharist is a relocation of its participants into all four stages of successive salvific events closely connected with the person of Moses / Jesus, described in Ex 6:2-15:21 / Jn 1:19-20:31, including – in the third part – the passage from the place of the supper meal to the place of entry into the Abyss and passing through it (Ex 13:17-14:31 / Jn 18-19). Despite it all, the liturgical community is called to worship God in prayer at the time of after-Passover / after-Eucharist part by uniting itself to that original, historically singular Event which took place not under cover of the signs of the Paschal/Eucharistic meal, but in the sensually perceptible and acute realities of human history. The reality in question here concerns Moses’/Jesus’ passage from the place of celebration to the place of entry into Abyss of sea / Abyss of death and through it, a passage through an overwhelming fear, a passage that demands co-participation in this immense effort, and therefore co-suffering, co-dying, co-burying, and co-existing in the Abyss.

It is to such participation, such immersion in Christ, that St. Paul called the Corinthians with the words: [30] “Every time you eat this bread and drink from this chalice, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes [to you as the Risen Lord]” (1Cor 11:26). Contrary to commentators, [31] apostle Paul does not refer to Parousia in 1Cor 11:26. He tells about the Lord’s coming after every Eucharist to a community lasting in prayerful being with Him who is passing through Abyss after death. A careful grammatical analysis of 1Cor 11:26 as well as the wider passage reveals this truth.

Hence the apostle, after showing the necessity of eating the Body and Blood of Jesus worthily during Eucharist, that is, eating with the proper awareness that man is now genuinely sharing in the death of Christ (cf. 1Cor 11:26-30), and having concluded his consideration of the problems of the Eucharist itself (“The other matters I shall set in order when I come” – 1Cor 11:34), he begins to teach about the gifts of Holy Spirit. It is about the gifts bestowed by Holy Spirit on the community that continues to pray after Eucharist (cf. 12-15). The introduction to this extensive instruction is the sentence 12:3, which, correctly translated, [32] turns out to be a link with 11:26, thus showing that the apostle is not talking here about prayer unrelated to the Eucharist, but about this kind of communal prayer which is the theologically legitimate continuation of the Eucharist:

The apostle teaches that no spirit knows the mystery of Jesus as the Sacrifice-Anathema [33] and as the Lord-Kyrios except the Holy Spirit of God. Only the Holy Spirit can give an understanding of this full mystery of Jesus to those who prophesy in the Eucharistic assembly, contributing to the full knowledge of Jesus by the whole community, to the full immersion of the community in Jesus, in his passage through death to Resurrection. Only under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, the community prophets were capable of recognizing the moment in which the proclamation of Lord’s death (and through this proclamation – the conscious participation in His death) had to be changed into a proclamation of His Glory because He – invisible to senses but visible to the Spirit – came to them as the Risen One. In that very moment also, they were raising under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit the acclamation “Kyrios Jesus” and simultaneously transformed the cry “Marana tha” (Lord, come!) into “Maran atha” (The Lord has come!). [34]