The Eucharist, The Cross, and OT Sacrifices

[Andrewn]

I wasn't sure whether to post this in General Theology or Traditional Theology. Perhaps by posting here, there may be more responses from believers in the Real Presence.

The Cross is the central sacrifice of love around which the entire history revolves. The end of one age and adjuration of another.

The question is what is the relationship of the eucharist and OT sacrifices to Christ's sacrifice?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The question is what is the relationship of the eucharist and OT sacrifices to Christ's sacrifice?

Well the Eucharist is a Anamnesis of the Crucifixion', which is more than just a 'memorial" in the modern sense, but a retelling, a reliving it, kind of like the Passover Seder liturgy of the Haggadah.

Mass Communication


I would say the other sacrifices foreshadow the eucharist, in the same way that technique is used in other kinds of literature etc. They also kind of act like foils to explain why eucharist is needed when it comes to saint Paul explaining things in places like Hebrews 10 etc.

 

[HTacianas]

I wasn't sure whether to post this in General Theology or Traditional Theology. Perhaps by posting here, there may be more responses from believers in the Real Presence.

The Cross is the central sacrifice of love around which the entire history revolves. The end of one age and adjuration of another.

The question is what is the relationship of the eucharist and OT sacrifices to Christ's sacrifice?

To add to what @Pavel Mosko said about "reliving" the sacrifice of Christ through the Eucharist. Jesus said "do this in memory of me", meaning do this as a memorial to me. A memorial in the OT is a memorial of sin, see memorial throughout Leviticus 2. That memorial is a sacrifice that is relived through the Eucharist. Paul identifies it as a sacrifice in comparing it to the OT sacrifices and also to gentile sacrifices:

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1Co 10:17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

1Co 10:18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

1Co 10:19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything?

1Co 10:20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.

1Co 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.

 

[Andrewn]

Well the Eucharist is a Anamnesis of the Crucifixion', which is more than just a 'memorial" in the modern sense, but a retelling, a reliving it, kind of like the Passover Seder liturgy of the Haggadah. Mass Communication I would say the other sacrifices foreshadow the eucharist, in the same way that technique is used in other kinds of literature etc. They also kind of act like foils to explain why eucharist is needed when it comes to saint Paul explaining things in places like Hebrews 10 etc.

To add to what @Pavel Mosko said about "reliving" the sacrifice of Christ through the Eucharist. Jesus said "do this in memory of me", meaning do this as a memorial to me. A memorial in the OT is a memorial of sin, see memorial throughout Leviticus 2. That memorial is a sacrifice that is relived through the Eucharist. Paul identifies it as a sacrifice in comparing it to the OT sacrifices and also to gentile sacrifices:

The eucharist is the anamnesis of the Crucifixion. OT sacrifices were antitypes of the crucifixion. Can we say that both are ways of representing the cross?

No one claims a real presence of Christ in OT sacrifices. If both are symbols, can this be an argument against the real presence in the Eucharist?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I wasn't sure whether to post this in General Theology or Traditional Theology. Perhaps by posting here, there may be more responses from believers in the Real Presence.

The Cross is the central sacrifice of love around which the entire history revolves. The end of one age and adjuration of another.

The question is what is the relationship of the eucharist and OT sacrifices to Christ's sacrifice?

His sacrifice is the bride price He paid...when we drink of the cup, we accept the covenant...it is a Jewish marriage...we are bethrothed...we are to wait and stay pure until He returns for us to go to the marriage supper of The Lamb! Yeshua said "In my Father's House are many dwellings...I go and prepare a place for you" John 14 The Father would let the groom know when it was time to go get his bride. Before the groom would leave, the groom would give a cup of wine to the bride. If she drank it, she accepted the proposal and the couple were joined in a covenant of betrothal. The groom would have to pay a bride price (mohar). From that moment on, the bride was sanctified. When the groom returned for his bride it was usually at midnight (also read "it happened at midnight" in the Pesakh Haggadah). in Eastern Orthodoxy, Pascha is celebrated at midnight. Although the bride was expecting her groom to come for her, she did not know the exact time of his coming. As a result the groom's arrival would be preceded by a shout. This shout would forewarn the bride to be prepared for the coming of the groom. Once the groom received his bride, they would go to the ceremony and feasting would last 7 days.

 

[HTacianas]

The eucharist is the anamnesis of the Crucifixion. OT sacrifices were antitypes of the crucifixion. Can we say that both are ways of representing the cross?

No one claims a real presence of Christ in OT sacrifices. If both are symbols, can this be an argument against the real presence in the Eucharist?

The old testament sacrifices could I suppose represent the cross but only that they were a foreshadow of what was to come. There was no reason to believe that Christ was present in those sacrifices. He makes no mention of it but does explicitly say that he would give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink. And then "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you".

That the Eucharist is in fact the body and blood of Christ has always been a given. The idea that it is not is only recent.

 

[The Liturgist]

The eucharist is the anamnesis of the Crucifixion. OT sacrifices were antitypes of the crucifixion. Can we say that both are ways of representing the cross?

No one claims a real presence of Christ in OT sacrifices. If both are symbols, can this be an argument against the real presence in the Eucharist?

I am going to say no, because salvation was not made available to anyone except those like St. Elias (Elijah) who were directly assumed until the crucifixion of our Lord (the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell, which I agree with, explains how the righteous of the past were saved by our Lord and also answers the legitimate question as to why He would go there; God would not permit the devil to inflict torment upon His divinity, and indeed such an idea is theologically impossible, contradicting the doctrine of divine immutability and no one to my knowledge ever argued that was the reason for his descent, whereas the Harrowing of Hell has Patristic support going at least as far as the 19th century).

Also, we have the Melchizedek incident, which several, even in Patristic times, believe was a Christophany, and which even if not, looks a lot like a Eucharist. And the shewbread and drink offerings in the Temple also look like prefigurations of the Eucharist.

 

[disciple Clint]

I wasn't sure whether to post this in General Theology or Traditional Theology. Perhaps by posting here, there may be more responses from believers in the Real Presence.

The Cross is the central sacrifice of love around which the entire history revolves. The end of one age and adjuration of another.

The question is what is the relationship of the eucharist and OT sacrifices to Christ's sacrifice?

my answer is that in the O.T. they are actually miking sacrifices in the Eucharist we are commemorating a sacrifice not making one, Jesus died once.

 

[Andrewn]

my answer is that in the O.T. they are actually miking sacrifices in the Eucharist we are commemorating a sacrifice not making one, Jesus died once.

But OT sacrifices had no efficacy in themselves. They were only a foreshadow of what was to come.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

But OT sacrifices had no efficacy in themselves. They were only a foreshadow of what was to come.

In the western theology at least they are a temporary band aid / cover up of sin but not actually ending it. I think that comes from Hebrews or the epistle of Romans. I think it is true of the actual biblical text (Hebrews 10 or one of the chapters that deals that "if the law was perfect there would be no need of Christ"), but I'm leery of going to far down the rabbit hole into it because at some point you get into full on Original Sin, Anselm and other kinds of juridicialism that brings a lot of problems of it own.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But OT sacrifices had no efficacy in themselves. They were only a foreshadow of what was to come.

That is not true. Take Yom Kippur for example. Sins were covered for that year, so a yearly sacrifice...

 

[Andrewn]

That is not true. Take Yom Kippur for example. Sins were covered for that year, so a yearly sacrifice...

I have to disagree with this.

 

[Clare73]

I wasn't sure whether to post this in General Theology or Traditional Theology. Perhaps by posting here, there may be more responses from believers in the Real Presence.
The Cross is the central sacrifice of love around which the entire history revolves. The end of one age and adjuration of another.
The question is what is the relationship of the eucharist and OT sacrifices to Christ's sacrifice?

The OT sacrifices were shadows, prefigures, patterns, types of Christ's sacrifice.

The eucharist is the NT sacrificial meal partaking of the sacrifice itself, as in the OT sacrificial meal.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I have to disagree with this.

How can you disagree?

 

[Clare73]

To add to what @Pavel Mosko said about "reliving" the sacrifice of Christ through the Eucharist. Jesus said "do this in memory of me", meaning do this as a memorial to me. A memorial in the OT is a memorial of sin, see memorial throughout Leviticus 2. That memorial is a sacrifice that is relived through the Eucharist. Paul identifies it as a sacrifice in comparing it to the OT sacrifices and also to gentile sacrifices:

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1Co 10:17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

1Co 10:18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

1Co 10:19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything?

1Co 10:20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.

1Co 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.

It is the NT sacrificial meal, as the OT sacrificial meal, on the sacrifice itself, where the Israelite took home a portion of the sacrifice from the altar to eat in a fellowship meal with the priest who offered it, and who ate his portion up at the Temple courtyard.

The NT sacrificial meal of the sacrifice is in memory of him, proclaiming the Lord's death (gospel) until he comes.

 

[Clare73]

The eucharist is the anamnesis of the Crucifixion. OT sacrifices were antitypes of the crucifixion. Can we say that both are ways of representing the cross?

No one claims a real presence of Christ in OT sacrifices. If both are symbols, can this be an argument against the real presence in the Eucharist?

Living "real presence" is not the issue, for the sacrificial meal was on the dead flesh from the altar.
The issue is that it is the flesh and blood of the actual sacrifice from the altar of the cross where, in memory of him, we partake of the benefits of that sacrifice, as well as proclaim the Lord's death (gospel) until he comes.

 

[Clare73]

my answer is that in the O.T. they are actually miking sacrifices in the Eucharist
we are commemorating a sacrifice not making one, Jesus died once.

Actually, you are partaking of a sacrificial meal of the actual sacrificed flesh and blood from the altar of the cross in memory of him and proclaiming the Lord's death (gospel) until he comes.

 

[Clare73]

But OT sacrifices had no efficacy in themselves. They were only a foreshadow of what was to come.

They covered sin until it was actually remitted by Jesus' sacrifice.

 

[Clare73]

That is not true. Take Yom Kippur for example. Sins were covered for that year, so a yearly sacrifice...

Covered is not remitted (Hebrews 10:4).

 

[disciple Clint]

Actually, you are partaking of a sacrificial meal of the actual sacrificed flesh and blood from the altar of the cross in memory of him and proclaiming the Lord's death (gospel) until he comes.

which does not conflict in any way with what I posted, lets not derail this into a question of the true presents of Jesus in the Eucharist.