Does Old Testament Typology Point To The Catholic Eucharist?

• Discussion:

          -Karlo Broussard wrote an article providing two reasons as to why he believes the Roman Catholic view of the Lord's Supper is true. He makes his case by using typology. Following are a handful of excerpts from the author along 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. It was temporal. Christ is to be spiritually consumed by faith, not by literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

          Typology does not require the fulfillment to be more physical or more literal. It requires it to be greater in salvific significance. And Christ’s spiritual nourishment is infinitely greater than a miraculous desert food. Belief, not chewing, is the mechanism of receiving the true manna.

          Typology can help illustrate Catholic claims, but it cannot establish them. In this case, the Old Testament patterns align more naturally with a symbolic or spiritual understanding: the manna points to Christ as spiritual sustenance, the covenant blood points to Christ’s literal blood shed on the cross, and the Passover meal points to a symbolic participation in God’s saving act. None of these typological connections requires a literal transformation of elements, a localized physical presence, or the metaphysical framework of transubstantiation.

          "...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 bread and wine at the Last Supper simply pointed to that reality.

          The words of Jesus Christ regarding eating His flesh and drinking His blood are indeed to be understood in a non-literal fashion. He Himself set forth precedent for understanding His teaching figuratively, since He elsewhere spoke of receiving salvation in terms of food and drink (Matthew 5:6; John 7:37-38). The language of eating and drinking in a metaphorical sense would not have been unknown to Jews who were alive during the first century.

          The biblical pattern shows that the Old Covenant was ratified with the blood of animals, while the New Covenant is ratified with the blood of Christ, and in both cases the covenant takes effect through the death of the covenant victim; Hebrews 9 underscores this by teaching that Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary by means of His own blood, blood shed on the cross rather than at the Last Supper.