The Eucharist, The Cross, and OT Sacrifices

[disciple Clint]

In message #65, I wrote, "The Lord's sacrifice was to remove the penalty of eternal death. To reconcile the world to God." But this may not be a clear answer, or the only answer.

For a better and more detailed answer, the following 2 articles are definitely worth the time spent in reading them:

What Christ Accomplished on the Cross

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Doctrine of the Atonement

Death is the result of sin, removing death requires removing sin, God being just did not begin a new covenant without the appropriate sacrifice, the only sacrifice that could be considered appropriate would be Jesus due to His humanity and divinity. we are on the same page for the most part.

 

[hedrick]

Oddly, no one in this thread seems to have looked at what Jesus said about the significance. The words of institution refer to the blood of the covenant, which Luke and Paul understand as a new covenant.

That’s a quotation of Ex 24:8 and Zech 9:11. In the OT sacrifices were used for different things. They’re not all sin sacrifices. Making a covenant could also involve a sacrifice. Why? That’s speculation, but sacrifice isn’t just (maybe isn’t at all) vicarious punishment. There are also “fellowship sacrifices”, which seems to be a meal shared with Gid. I assume for a covenant sacrifice, the blood indicates the seriousness of the commitment. That’s how Zech 9:11 seems to see it. Because of the blood of his covenant with his people, God is committed to saving them.

It’s possible that this is Jesus’ understanding. But if Luke and Paul are right that Jesus referred to a new covenant, this is likely a reference to Jer 31:31, which refers to a new covenant, where the people are renewed by the law written in their hearts. This is certainly consistent with Jesus teaching, which sees the Law as fulfilled by love, and deemphasizes the letter.

So how might his death establish this new covenant? Paul gives his understanding of the atonement in Rom 6. He says that through union with Christ we die to sin and rise to new life with him. This new life is the life of the new covenant. Participating in communion in faith is a sign and a means of participating in this.

 

[Clare73]

.

 

[Andrewn]

The words of institution refer to the blood of the covenant, which Luke and Paul understand as a new covenant. That’s a quotation of Ex 24:8 and Zech 9:11.

I have no doubt that "covenant" is the primary meaning celebrated in the "eucharist." What is your take on the following?

Heb 9:15 For this reason, he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who have been called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since his death has served to redeem the sins that were committed under the first covenant.

16 Now when a will is involved, it is obligatory to prove the death of the one who made it. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it has no force while the one who made it is still alive.

 

[Clare73]

Oddly, no one in this thread seems to have looked at what Jesus said about the significance. The words of institution refer to the blood of the covenant, which Luke and Paul understand as a new covenant.
That’s a quotation of Ex 24:8 and Zech 9:11. In the OT sacrifices were used for different things.

They’re not all sin sacrifices. Making a covenant could also involve a sacrifice. Why? That’s speculation, but
sacrifice isn’t just (maybe isn’t at all) vicarious punishment. There are also “fellowship sacrifices”, which seems to be a meal shared with Gid.

Not all sacrifices were for atonement, but all sacrifices were based on atonement.
Although not a sacrifice for sin, the element of substitutionary atonement is in the sacrifices of worship and fellowship because the atonement is the basis of all acceptable worship and fellowship.

I assume for a covenant sacrifice, the blood indicates the seriousness of the commitment. That’s how Zech 9:11 seems to see it. Because of the blood of his covenant with his people, God is committed to saving them.

Indeed.
However, the blood of covenants was not a sacrifice per se, because it was not burned on an altar.

In those times, parties solemnized the cutting (making) of a covenant by walking down an aisle flanked by pieces of slaughtered animals (Genesis 15:9-11, Genesis 15:17; Jeremiah 34:18-19)
--the smoking pot of Genesis 15:17 symbolizing the presence of God (Exodus 3:2, 14:24, 19:18;
1 Kings 18:38; Acts 2:3-4)--
signifying a self-maledictory oath: "May it be so done to me if I do not keep my oath and pledge."

It’s possible that this is Jesus’ understanding. But if Luke and Paul are right that Jesus referred to a new covenant, this is likely a reference to Jer 31:31, which refers to a new covenant,

Jesus himself said the "cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:25)

the people are renewed by the law written in their hearts. This is certainly consistent with Jesus teaching, which sees the Law as fulfilled by love, and deemphasizes the letter.
So how might his death establish this new covenant?

The shedding of his blood on the cross was the cutting (making) of the new covenant.

Paul gives his understanding of the atonement in Rom 6.

Rather than the atonement itself, would that not be his understanding of the effects and results of the atonement for those of faith?
His understanding of the atonement itself is in Romans 3:25--atonement is through faith in his blood.

He says that through union with Christ we die to sin and rise to new life with him. This new life is the life of the new covenant. Participating in communion in faith is a sign and a means of participating in this.

Indeed. . .and a proclamation of the Lord's death (sacrifice; gospel) until he comes (1 Corinthians 11:26).

 

[hedrick]

I have no doubt that "covenant" is the primary meaning celebrated in the "eucharist." What is your take on the following?

Heb 9:15 For this reason, he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who have been called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since his death has served to redeem the sins that were committed under the first covenant.

16 Now when a will is involved, it is obligatory to prove the death of the one who made it. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it has no force while the one who made it is still alive.

Heb 9 also sees Jesus' death as a covenant sacrifice. A footnote in NRSV says the word translated will also means covenant. Theses verses were somehow an illustration of the need for death in making a covenant, as the next verse makes clear.

"For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood."

But the need for death only works for a will, not most covenants, so the illustration seems a bit odd. Perhaps it would seem less odd if the word for will and covenant was the same in English. Nevertheless, it's clearly part of an explanation for how Christ's death is necessary to establish the new covenant.

 

[Andrewn]

A footnote in NRSV says the word translated will also means covenant. Theses verses were somehow an illustration of the need for death in making a covenant, as the next verse makes clear.

Yes, there is a significant controversy as to whether it should be translated "will" or "covenant." NT Wright chose the latter translation:

Heb 9:16 Where there is a covenant, you see, it is vital to establish the death of the one who made it.

NT Wright is usually a logical man but this translation makes no sense to me. It also contradicts the opinion of most commentators that I read. If you make a covenant with someone, you don't kill one of them to establish the covenant!

But the need for death only works for a will, not most covenants, so the illustration seems a bit odd.

Perhaps we should be looking at these verses the other way around. We usually expect verses 16 & 17 to explain verses 15 & 18. What if it is the other way around. After all, OT sacrifices were a figure or type of Christ's crucifixion, which gave us the eternal inheritance.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, there is a significant controversy as to whether it should be
translated "will" or "covenant."

Aren't they basically the same thing, both becoming effective by blood (death) (Hebrews 9:16; Genesis 15:9-11; Exodus 24:8), as we see also in Genesis 15:17; Jeremiah 34:18-19?

NT Wright chose the latter translation:

Heb 9:16 Where there is a covenant, you see, it is vital to establish the death of the one who made it.
NT Wright is usually a logical man but this translation makes no sense to me.

Is he not thinking of covenant and last will and testament as basically the same thing, both not being effective until the death (blood) of the testator, Christ being the testator of the will/new covenant.

It also contradicts the opinion of most commentators that I read. If you
make a covenant with someone, you don't kill one of them to establish the covenant!

It's about death (blood) itself ratifying a covenant, not whose death it is.
In the New Covenant, the death is of Christ, perfectly in agreement with the type.

Perhaps we should be looking at these verses the other way around. We usually expect verses 16 & 17 to explain verses 15 & 18. I think it is the other way around. After all, OT sacrifices were a figure or type of Christ's crucifixion, which gave us the eternal inheritance.

They explain each other, for a will and a covenant are basically the same thing, both require death to become effective.

 

[Arctangent]

The "Day of Atonement" is the Day of Covering. Not because sins were covered, but because everything in the Tabernacle, including the high priest, was covered in blood. It was a purification ceremony to prepare the Tabernacle and the priest to be in the direct presence of God on that day.

There is a lot of theology that has built up over that coined word "atonement", but the word is literally just "cover" or "covering". It is the same word in Hebrew that would mean "lid". In fact, that word is used numerous times throughout the Torah (I think particularly in Leviticus) in reference to houses, pottery, furniture and clothing after they had become unclean, far more than it is used in reference to the Day of Atonement. (For example, Leviticus 14:53) And that is because the unclean things became clean again, and in the process they were purified of their uncleanness.

"Atonement" language is always about purifying something (objects, people, the world) from the effects and stain of sin and uncleanness. It is never about dealing with sin in a "guilt/innocence" sense.

 

[Arctangent]

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?

Most sacrifices that were sin offerings were consumed, either by the priest or by the priest and the one who brought the offering. The Paschal lamb, one that is cited probably most often in the New Testament, particularly as Christ was crucified on or just before the Pascha, was a lamb that was killed specifically to be eaten, without any element of "sin" mentioned anywhere.

Just as those sacrifices were eaten, the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross is also eaten. Just as the sacrifice being eaten in the Old Testament was the very real and literal flesh of the sacrifice, so that Eucharist which is eaten is the very real and literal flesh and blood of Christ.

 

[Clare73]

Most sacrifices that were sin offerings were consumed, either by the priest or by the priest and the one who brought the offering. The Paschal lamb, one that is cited probably most often in the New Testament, particularly as Christ was crucified on or just before the Pascha, was a lamb that was killed specifically to be eaten, without any element of "sin" mentioned anywhere.

Passover was for a memorial, it was not for atonement, right?

Just as those sacrifices were eaten, the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross is also eaten. Just as the sacrifice being eaten in the Old Testament was the very real and literal flesh of the sacrifice, so that Eucharist which is eaten is the very real and literal flesh and blood of Christ.

 

[Clare73]

Most sacrifices that were sin offerings were consumed, either by the priest or by the priest and the one who brought the offering. The Paschal lamb, one that is cited probably most often in the New Testament, particularly as Christ was crucified on or just before the Pascha, was a lamb that was killed specifically to be eaten, without any element of "sin" mentioned anywhere.

Just as those sacrifices were eaten, the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross is also eaten. Just as the sacrifice being eaten in the Old Testament was the very real and literal flesh of the sacrifice, so that Eucharist which is eaten is the very real and literal flesh and blood of Christ.

It is the sacrificed flesh and blood of Christ, as the OT sacrifices that were eaten were of the sacrificed flesh, right?

 

[ralliann]

Passover was for a memorial, it was not for atonement, right?

Yes, but a memorial of the redemption from slavery promised in the
covenant made with their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In other words the Passover sacrifice belongs to the covenant made to their fathers (circumcision). The Passover of Christ Jesus, is a sacrifice to fulfil the promises made to all men in Abraham, fulfilling his promise in us, to be made a father of many nations.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, but a memorial of the redemption from slavery promised in the
covenant made with their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In other words the Passover sacrifice belongs to the covenant made to their fathers (circumcision). The Passover of Christ Jesus, is a sacrifice to fulfil the promises made to all men in Abraham, fulfilling his promise in us, to be made a father of many nations.

Wasn't it a memorial of deliverance from the angel of death in the tenth plague (Exodus 12:26-27)?

 

[ralliann]

Wasn't it a memorial of deliverance from the angel of death in the tenth plague (Exodus 12:26-27)?

Only for the firstborn, which spared their houses. It was not a sparing of Death for anyone but the firstborn.
John preaches escape for the coming wrath of God upon those judged by the law.
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Ac 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

 

[Clare73]

Only for the firstborn, which spared their houses.
It was not a sparing of Death for anyone but the firstborn.

No one but the firstborn of Egypt died in the plague.

John preaches escape for the coming wrath of God upon those judged by the law.
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Ac 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

 

[ralliann]

No one but the firstborn of Egypt died in the plague.

Right

 

[ralliann]

Atonement/covering/appeasement of sin is through the shedding of blood. Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Kaphar...Kapperah

Leviticus 4:20
Leviticus 6:7
Leviticus 17:11
Leviticus 19:22
Psalms 32:1

I really do not know why understanding this is so difficult for you...

Purging is atonement? Not so sure about that.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is the sacrificed flesh and blood of Christ, as the OT sacrifices that were eaten were of the sacrificed flesh, right?

Yes, albeit with the caveat that St. Peter describes us as partakers of the Divine Nature, and communicatio idiomatum clearly applies.. And if we accept the doctrine of the Real Presence, which most traditional Christians do, it makes the most sense to say that we partake of the sacrificed and resurrected flesh and blood of our Lord, because the extremely miraculous nature of our Lord after resurrection suggests an ability to be Really Present in the Eucharist in any condition.

Interestingly, Theodore of Mopsuestia postulated that the bread and wine become the sacrificed Body and Blood, which is then resurrected in the Epiklesis. I would stress however that this is not a widely accepted Eucharistic theology.