Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant [ratified] in My blood. |
Subject: What or who did the rock signify/ |
Bible Note: "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! |