Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What or who did the rock signify/ | Luke 22:20 | Reformer Joe | 80392 | ||
Christ. "For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ." --1 Corinthians 10:1-4 I see both Protestant sacraments alluded to in these verses. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | What or who did the rock signify/ | Luke 22:20 | Emmaus | 80439 | ||
Joe, "For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ." --1 Corinthians 10:1-4 Moses was told to strike the rock the first time, but the second time he was told to only speak to the rock. but he struck it again either because he lacked faith or because he thought it was himself performing the miracle rather than God. Jesus is the rock from which living waters flow. John 4:13-14. Jesus is the rock who was struck at Calvary and from his side flowed water and blood, the signs of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. Now it is not necessary to strike the rock again but only to go to the rock and speak to Him and the waters of everlasting life and the blood of everlasting life flow in Baptism and the Eucharist and in other New Covenant signs. When the words, "I baptize you"..., "this is my body" come to the water, bread, wine, it is efficaious because it is Christ who is baptizing us and giving us his saving blood even if it is someone else in his Body, the Church, speaking the words. It is Christ who is at work in the signs of the New Covenant and it is He who makes then efficaious. When Moses sprinkled water or blood on the people it was a sign, but it was not efficaious, because the water and the blood did not flow from Moses and even if they did, his blood and water could not save only foreshadow. When Jesus baptizes us and give us his blood through the Body of Christ,his Church, it is efficaious because it is Christ working in and through his mystical body, the Church. The difference between the old signs that were not efficaious and the new signs that are is Jesus. It is like the difference between a lifeguard chair with a life ring or a cripple in the seat and a life guard chair with Jesus in the seat. Who is going to save you? "For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities." Hebrews 10:1 "These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." Col 2:17 Emmaus |
||||||
3 | What or who did the rock signify/ | Luke 22:20 | Reformer Joe | 80466 | ||
Hi, Emmaus. You wrote: "When Moses sprinkled water or blood on the people it was a sign, but it was not efficaious, because the water and the blood did not flow from Moses and even if they did, his blood and water could not save only foreshadow." I think that the actions of Moses were indeed efficacious, even though I agree that they did not save. The sprinkling of blood (Exodus 24:8) did exactly what God intended it to do: ratify the covenant between Himself and the nation of Israel. In that outward act, the recipients of the sprinkling were covenantally bound. "The difference between the old signs that were not efficaious and the new signs that are is Jesus." Were the old signs not efficacious? Think back to the first Passover. There certainly was an effect there! I don't find much evidence that the old rites were any more or less efficacious than the ones instituted by Jesus. Making Passover and circumcision bare symbols is just as mistaken as doing that to baptism and communion, IMO. They didn't do everything, but they accomplished something. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | What or who did the rock signify/ | Luke 22:20 | Emmaus | 80470 | ||
Joe, "Were the old signs not efficacious? Think back to the first Passover. There certainly was an effect there! I don't find much evidence that the old rites were any more or less efficacious than the ones instituted by Jesus. Making Passover and circumcision bare symbols is just as mistaken as doing that to baptism and communion, IMO. They didn't do everything, but they accomplished something." If the signs instituted by Jesus are no more efficaious than the signs of the Old Covenenant, what did Jesus accomplish and what difference does He make? That would fly in the face of the major point made in Hebrews. I agree that the old signs did accomplish some things and were efficaious in sense that you indicate but they were not efficaious in the same sense as the New Covenant signs which are efficaious in transmitting sanctifying grace, because it is Jesus, not man, who works in and through them. Emmaus |
||||||
5 | What or who did the rock signify/ | Luke 22:20 | Reformer Joe | 80483 | ||
' If the signs instituted by Jesus are no more efficaious than the signs of the Old Covenenant, what did Jesus accomplish and what difference does He make? That would fly in the face of the major point made in Hebrews." Hebrews makes many points, so I am not absolutely sure to which one you refer. If you mean the statement that the blood of sacrificial bulls and goats can never take away sins, then I would agree and add that neither can water nor bread and wine. Still, the faithful Israelite participated in this ritual. Was it an empty symbol or was there a union between this sacrifice and the atoning work of the Lamb of God? Jesus accomplished salvation for those who died before He was born as well. The fact that he accomplished this in a specific place at a specific time does not take away from the eternality of the redemption purchased. --Joe! |
||||||
6 | What or who did the rock signify/ | Luke 22:20 | Emmaus | 80487 | ||
Joe, "Hebrews makes many points, so I am not absolutely sure to which one you refer. If you mean the statement that the blood of sacrificial bulls and goats can never take away sins, then I would agree and add that neither can water nor bread and wine. Still, the faithful Israelite participated in this ritual. Was it an empty symbol or was there a union between this sacrifice and the atoning work of the Lamb of God?" So why did we not just go on using the signs of the Old Covenant after Jesus' sacrifice if He had made them efficaious? Because the real had come to fulfill the shadow as I previously cited. Was anyone baptized into Jesus before Jesus or as Paul says were they "baptized into Moses? Did Jesus ever say of bulls or any other animal: "this is my body" or "this is my blood"? And why did we not just go on using the signs of the Old Covenant after Jesus' sacrifice if He had made them efficaious? Anyway, just a few thoughts I wanted to bring out. Emmaus |
||||||
7 | What or who did the rock signify/ | Luke 22:20 | Reformer Joe | 80499 | ||
"So why did we not just go on using the signs of the Old Covenant after Jesus' sacrifice if He had made them efficaious?" Several reasons: 1. The gospel in its fulness had been revealed in Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Once the atonement occurred in time and space, the foreshadowing rituals had been explained and fulfilled. 2. Circumcision and sacrifices were bloody rituals, teaching the Israelites of the need of the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. Now that Christ demonstrated that in himself, no need to be slaying Lambchop as a sign and seal. The writer of Hebrews is very instructive in this regard when he indicates that continuing the OT sacrifices will be of no benefit to the Hebrew church now that the thing signified has been revealed. This implies that prior to the Incarnation that there was indeed a benefit (although not justifying) for participating in the sacrifices and eating the covenant meals associated with them. 'Was anyone baptized into Jesus before Jesus or as Paul says were they "baptized into Moses?' By being "baptized into Moses," I think Paul is using the name of Moses to signify the Mosaic Covenant. The Israelites were not "the body of Moses," for example, in the same way that those baptized into Christ are members of His body. And I believe that the OT covenant people who were "baptized into Moses" were just as much as part of the body of Christ as I am, despite their lack of complete revelation on the matter. 'Did Jesus ever say of bulls or any other animal: "this is my body" or "this is my blood"?' No, but John the Baptist prophetically said, "Behold, the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world!" The Jewish audience knew exactly what he was referring to. And, as you said, the OT rituals were shadows of the reality, and I believe that baptism and communion are signs and seals of the reality. In neither case, in the Protestant view, are sacraments the reality themselves. Additionally, did Jesus ever refer to baptismal water as His body and blood? No, but you and I both agree that there is some efficacy in the sacrament. The same passage you cite (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) does indicate that the Israelites were spiritual partakers of Christ, though. I think that our theological difference here stems more from our respective positions on the Eucharist and what it does. In other words, I don't think we disagree so much on what the OT sacraments did as much as we disagree on what the NT sacraments confer upon the recipient. --Joe! |
||||||