-Karlo Broussard wrote an article listing two reasons as to why he believes that we should accept the Roman Catholic view of the Lord's Supper as true. Following are a handful of excerpts from the author alongside with a critique:
"If the Eucharist were just ordinary bread and wine with no miraculous element to it, then the new manna would be inferior to the old. But that’s a no-go when it comes to Biblical typology. The New Testament fulfillment must always be greater than the Old Testament type."
Jesus Christ, the new manna, is superior to the manna given in the desert because the nourishment that He provides is life everlasting. The manna given to the Israelites was designated to satisfy physical hunger and was thus temporal. Christ is to be spiritually consumed by faith and not by literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
"...If real blood was used for the ratifying ceremony of the Old Covenant, then how much more need there be real blood for the ratifying ceremony of the New Covenant, which is the Last Supper?"
The "real" and "substantial" blood of the New Covenant was shed on the cross. The wine at the Last Supper simply pointed to that reality.
The language of eating and drinking in a metaphorical sense would not have been unknown to Jews who were alive during the first century. For example, Ben Sira spoke of being fed with the bread of understanding and given the water of wisdom (Sirach 15:3). The Book of Proverbs employs similar imagery in the context of receiving instruction (Proverbs 9:5).
The words of Jesus Christ regarding eating His flesh and drinking His blood can indeed be understood in a non-literal fashion. He Himself set forth precedent for understanding His words spoken during the Bread of Life Discourse figuratively, since He elsewhere spoke of receiving salvation in terms of food and drink (Matthew 5:6; John 7:37-38).
Post a Comment