The Sign and Seal of the New Covenant–Luke 22:20

There are many reasons we Baptists do not sprinkle our infants.  The most obvious reason is that we find no biblical warrant to do so. There is neither a command to “baptize” infants  nor an example of an infant “baptism” in the entire New Testament.  I know, I know, there were those infants in the household of the Philippian jailor who were awakened in the wee hours of the morning so Paul could speak the word of the Lord to them and then baptize them (Acts 16:32-33).  Now, if you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Kansas I would like to sell you.   In the first place, the passage says absolutely nothing about infants.  If there were infants in the house, why would Paul need to speak the word of the Lord to them?  They would not have understood it anyway. Additionally, could this not have waited until morning so that the little darlings would not keep the rest of the household up all night?  I do not honestly think anyone believes this argument.

The real reason for infant “baptism” is the Paedobaptist belief in the unity of the covenants, or the unity of the different administrations of an overarching covenant of grace. They argue, Abraham’s physical offspring were circumcised because they were heirs of the covenant, therefore we must sprinkle our physical offspring because they too, by virtue of their physical relationship with their believing parents, are heirs of the covenant.

First, it is important to remember the covenant God made with Abraham contained both physical/material promises and spiritual promises.  Not a single physical heir of Abraham received spiritual blessings by virtue of his physical birth.  Paul wrote, “That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” (Romans 9:8).  The apostle wrote this in regard to Isaac who was the promised seed.  It was not all Abraham’s offspring who were to be blessed but “in Isaac your seed will be called” (v.7).  He further narrows the scope by showing that God rejected Esau and choose Jacob [Israel] (see- Rom 9:10-13). Additionally, we must keep in mind his caveat in verse six, “they are not all Israel who are of Israel.”  Not every member of the nation of Israel was destined to receive the spiritual inheritance promised to Abraham and his Seed.  In Galatians 3:16, the apostle identifies this “Seed” as Christ.  His argument in that passage runs like this:

1.    Abraham’s seed will be blessed (3:8).

2.    Christ is Abraham’s seed. (3:16).

3.     You are in Christ (3:26-27)..

4.    You are Abraham’s seed. (3:29a).

5.    You are blessed by receiving the blessing of Abraham (3:29b; see also 3:14).

Central to the apostle’s argument is the believer’s  union with Christ.  We are united to him by faith.  He wrote in Galatians 3:7, “therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.”  We become heirs to the spiritual promise of the Abrahamic covenant only by being united to Christ.  We are not born to those blessings; we receive them by being reborn.  God has many spiritual children, but not a single grandchild.  That is to say, spiritual blessings are not conveyed by physical generation but by spiritual regeneration.

Baptism serves as an outward sign of the inward grace of regeneration and union with Christ.  It is less than meaningless if there is no inward grace to reflect.

Now, if infant sprinkling is not the sign of the covenant, is there a sign of the new covenant and, if so, what is it?

In the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as he offered the cup of wine to his disciples, Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20).  Now, we can dismiss out of hand any suggestion that this cup is the new covenant.  This is no more true than the Roman Catholic superstition of transubstantiation.  There is no indication that the bread Jesus blessed actually became his body or the wine he blessed actually became his blood.  This is no more true than that he actually was the rock that Moses struck in the desert.  In all these cases, the speaker or writer clearly means these objects represent Jesus’ body, blood, covenant etc.

What Jesus is saying is that this cup of wine represents the new covenant he is going to ratify by shedding his blood.  This cup becomes the sign of that covenant.  Every time we take communion we should rejoice that we are heirs of the new and better covenant that was ratified by his blood.

Consider the signs of three important covenants and how they relate to one another.  The three covenants I am talking about are the Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic or Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.

The Sign of the Abrahamic Covenant

The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was physical circumcision. The apostle Paul wrote, “. . . he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, . . .”(Romans 4:11).  This pulling back and cutting away of the flesh finds its spiritual counterpart in regeneration, the pulling back and cutting away of the fleshly sinful heart.  Paul wrote, “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God” (Romans 2:28-29).

Remember that one promise of the New Covenant was that God would remove the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh.  It was this act of God the sign of circumcision anticipated.

The Sign of the Mosaic Covenant

Sabbath observance was to be the ceremonial sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.‘It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed” (Exo. 32:16-17).

God gave two reasons why the Israelites should observe this sign of the covenant.  Remember, to break the sign of the covenant is to break the covenant itself.  The first reason recalls God’s completion of and resting from his creation activity.  The second recalls Israel’s physical deliverance from Egyptian bondage.

And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:15).

This covenant sign finds its fulfillment in Christ, the believer’s Sabbath rest.  The Book of Hebrews tells us,

For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.  Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience (Heb. 4:8-11).

The Sign of the New Covenant

A New Creation

In identifying the communion cup as the sign of the New Covenant, Jesus was teaching that the sign of the New Covenant corresponds to and fulfills the sign of the Old Covenant.  The blood of the cross, Jesus’ redemptive work signified by this cup, finished the work of establishing the new creation just as the Old Covenant Sabbath observance recalled Jehovah’s completion of the old creation.  Every time we partake of this ordinance, we are to remember that his sacrificial work is finished.  “He once offered himself to God as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God.” (See the Westminster Shorter Catechism).  The new creation has been established. If any man is in Christ, he belongs to that new creation that Jesus established on the cross.

An Eternal Rest

Secondly, in identifying  the cup of blessing which we bless as the sign of the New Covenant, Jesus  points to our spiritual deliverance from sin’s bondage, typified by Egyptian bondage, and our entrance into spiritual rest, typified by Israel’s Canaan rest.  The second reason for Sabbath observance was that God had delivered the Israelites from Egypt.  We celebrate the Lord’s Table because we have been delivered from sin and entered into God’s eternal rest in Christ.

Jesus  has accomplished the rest and redemption foreshadowed by the Sabbath, the sign of the Old Covenant.   That covenant could provide neither everlasting rest nor spiritual redemption. Jesus has accomplished both by his redemptive work and offers us the communion cup to remind  us of his work and of our great privileges in him.


62 Responses to “The Sign and Seal of the New Covenant–Luke 22:20”

  1. 1 Ron
    December 26, 2012 at 3:52 am

    Thanks for sharing. This was a very informative read! Merry Christmas!

  2. July 16, 2015 at 1:11 am

    Mind if I quote you in my book? Good stuff here, my brother.

  3. 4 Jim
    January 17, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    This was really helpful. Almost all my literature in my Logos library and many, many on-line pages claim baptism as the sign, or in Grudem’s terms the initial sign of the new covenant. I find many people confused over this issue. The signs are not irrelevant because when you get to the issue of whether Christians should obey the Sabbath it’s really important to see the flow of Biblical theology, that is the way in which God’s revelation progresses. Could go on. But thanks for this frank summary.

  4. November 4, 2016 at 9:13 pm

    The Catholic Church baptizes children as a part of the spiritual authority that parents have in their children’s lives. At what age do children start making their own decisions? 3? 4? 5? Up until that age the people making all of their decisions for them is their parents. Your parents decide what you wear, what you eat, where you go to school etc. If your parents can make physical decisions that will help you succeed why wouldn’t God also grant them the ability to make spiritual decisions for you?
    —Catechism of the Catholic Church “1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clearly seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, the faithful are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about in each newly baptized person. ”
    In the bible, Peter and Paul do not wait until each person is of age of consent to baptize them. They baptize families and crowds at a time clearly showing that the point is not to declare your dedication/allegiance to Christ. It’s to make you a part of the body of Christ so that you can continue on in the faith and later choose to declare your allegiance (see sacrament of confirmation)

    Aside from that, Catholics do not consider baptism to be the sign of the new covenant.
    —1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”5

    The sign of the covenant of Moses is the Passover. Any practicing Jew can tell you that. So the fulfillment of the old covenant and the sign of the new covenant is the Eucharist. Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the last supper, which if you study the old testament and the gospels you can figure out that Jesus is celebrating the Passover during the week before his crucifixion.
    —“1334 In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God;156 their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God’s faithfulness to his promises. The “cup of blessing”157 at the end of the Jewish Passover meal adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup. ”

    All of the information is from the Vatican approved Catechism of the Catholic Church which is pretty much a book of all the beliefs of the universal Catholic church. Do not be misinformed by things you’ve heard as honestly, sometimes followers of the church do not really take the time to know their faith.

    • November 4, 2016 at 9:20 pm

      All that stuff you cited from Rome simply goes to show how far off the narrow path they are. Water baptism does NOT free anyone from sin. The baptism that regenerates is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which each person get when he is raised from spiritual death unto new life in Christ Jesus. That is also the circumcision not made with human hands, by which the Word tells us the Spirit inscribes the law of Christ onto to inner-most being of His children.

      • November 5, 2016 at 1:48 pm

        Acts 2:38New International Version (NIV)

        38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

      • November 5, 2016 at 1:49 pm

        Oh.. and

        39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

  5. November 5, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    And Valeria, do you have any idea what Peter meant when he spoke about “all whom the Lord our God will call?” And being baptized is “on account of” the forgiveness of sins not to effect such forgiveness.

    • November 15, 2016 at 7:05 pm

      Interesting interpretation of what’s clearly written. I assume you don’t also believe in solo scriptura?

      • November 16, 2016 at 1:11 am

        Valeria, I noticed you didn’t answer my question. Of course I believe in Sola Scriptura. I believe God’s promises are made to those who are called effectually by God. There are no promises made to any based on physical lineage. This is what Jesus meant when he said to Nicodemus “You must be born from above.”Physical birth gives no one entrance to the kingdom.

      • November 16, 2016 at 1:42 pm

        In what way is this an argument that shows that you’re baptism does not free you of sin? The words clearly say “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins” not “repent and be baptized on account of forgiveness of sins but your sins will not be forgiven”. That does not even make logical sense… You are clearly interpreting this scripture in your own way and not in a way that is self evident in scripture and therefore you can’t say that the bible is self evident because if it was we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

      • November 16, 2016 at 2:12 pm

        What you are writing doesn’t even make logical sense. If you believe it is the water of baptism that washes away sins then you don’t believe it is the blood [physical death] of Christ that washes away sins. The Bible simply does not teach baptismal regeneration. And we are not having a discussion. You are trying to impose your views in a place they aren’t welcome. The promise is to those the Lord our God shall call, not to people who are sprinkled because their parents happen to be believers.

      • November 16, 2016 at 3:31 pm

        The catechism does not say that it’s the water that cleans you of sin. It says that this is the sacrament in which God cleans you of original sin and in which you become a member of the church and adopted son or daughter of God. This is evident in the scripture whether you choose to accept it as written or not.

        And also I’m not imposing anything I’m simply correcting your explanation of why the Catholic Church believes in infant baptism.

      • November 17, 2016 at 12:45 pm

        It makes no difference what your catechism says. You and I have a different standard of authority which makes discussion with you an exercise in futility.

      • November 16, 2016 at 6:08 pm

        Also, if you could please explain/defend your stance…you say

        “In the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as he offered the cup of wine to his disciples, Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). Now, we can dismiss out of hand any suggestion that this cup is the new covenant. This is no more true than the Roman Catholic superstition of transubstantiation. There is no indication that the bread Jesus blessed actually became his body or the wine he blessed actually became his blood. This is no more true than that he actually was the rock that Moses struck in the desert. In all these cases, the speaker or writer clearly means these objects represent Jesus’ body, blood, covenant etc.”

        “Secondly, in identifying the cup of blessing which we bless as the sign of the New Covenant,”

        I’m confused on how you say “dismiss out of hand any suggestion that this cup is the new covenant” and yet that’s exactly what the scripture says it is. “this cup is the new covenant in my blood”. But then you contradict yourself by saying you identify the cup of blessing as the sign of the New Covenant”

        So which is it?

      • November 17, 2016 at 12:54 pm

        Perhaps if you read the Scriptures instead of listening to the great Whore of Rome, you would have a better understanding. If you can’t understand that Jesus was saying this cup REPRESENTS the New Covenant and not that it IS the New Covenant, further explanation on my part would be futile. You are wasting both my time and yours continuing to post on my blog. Please don’t do it again. Would be far better served by getting a good Reformed commentary on the Scriptures and begin to read truth rather than listening to the spew the RC organization of Pagan origins vomits out.

  6. November 16, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    I don’t think you understand the teaching of the transubstantiation either.

    Catechism 1374 ” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.”202 “This presence is called ‘real’ – by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”203

    The church does not teach that Jesus physically transformed the bread into a literal piece of his skin or finger and then told the apostles to take a bite of it. If you take a microscope and examine the Eucharist at the last supper it contains the particles of bread and wine not a human piece of flesh. The transubstantiation means that the bread and wine are spiritually transformed into the Body and Blood and thus connecting us and allowing us to partake in the feast of the Lord.

    Christ became the sacrificial lamb. In the old testament the Passover sacrifice was not complete until the Lamb is eaten.

    and when Jesus was speaking in metaphors none of the disciples or crowds contested him. When he said “I am the vine you are the branches” No one said “you’re not a tree!” when he said “I am the Shepard of the Lord” no one said “You’re not a shepard you’re a carpenter!” But when Christ says “and the bread that I will give is my flesh” people answered”How can he give us his flesh to eat?” This would have been a good opportunity for Jesus to say “the bread represents my flesh” but he doesn’t.

    John 6: 53 “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

    How many times does Jesus have to say it? If you believe in Sola Scriptura you can not interpret this scripture to mean that the bread is a representation because that is not what Christ says. Christ never says it’s a representation.

    This is the only time in the gospels that his disciples leave him due to a teaching that he has given. They also could not seem to comprehend or believe the teaching. But does Jesus chase them down and say no wait “I meant it as a representation! NO, he let’s them leaves and actually even asks the apostles, “Do you also want to leave?” By denying the presence you are denying Christ very own words.

  7. November 17, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    “The transubstantiation means that the bread and wine are spiritually transformed into the Body and Blood and thus connecting us and allowing us to partake in the feast of the Lord.” How can that which is physical [bread] be transformed into another physical substance [body] SPIRITUALLY. That makes absolutely no sense at all. If bread is TRANSFORMED into body then it becomes body. Since it is a stupid doctrine to begin with, I wouldn’t expect you to be able to make sense of it, but it says what it says. If you continue to follow the teaching of the great whore of Rome, you will perish in your sins. What you will not do is waste any more of my time answering your banal arguments. Don’t bother commenting again. If you don’t like the way I have interpreted the plain words of ROME, don’t read what I have written. It is pretty simple.

    • November 17, 2016 at 2:16 pm

      So I’m interested to know then, why is your interpretation of the scriptures the correct one?

      • November 17, 2016 at 2:20 pm

        Are you a prophet? Are appointed by God to interpret the scripture to everyone? And what of those who do not happen to stumble upon your blog? Are they lost with out you to explain what Jesus really meant? If you believe that the bible is the only divine and inspired writing then you should be able to respond using only bible quotes to explain…

    • November 17, 2016 at 3:33 pm

      Randy – it ain’t easy communicating spiritual truth to natural people, is it?

      • November 17, 2016 at 3:38 pm

        according to you it’s self-evident in the scripture. Where in the bible does it say that Jesus meant for the words “this is my body” to be taken as a symbol or representation?

      • November 17, 2016 at 3:47 pm

        In various places in Scripture we see temporal metaphors representing spiritual truths. Jesus is the door – does make Him a real door? John 6 is not speaking of the Lord’s Supper as an institution but of His role as Savior, the bread of Life. Near the end of this chapter, Jesus is explaining His message to His closest followers and He tells them, “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” having just told them, “The flesh doesn’t profit you at all.” When He did institute the Lord’s Supper, at the last Passover, He said His body was bread and His blood was the New Covenant. As Randy observed, Jesus obviously intended these things as representative, not literal – for He was at table with them and gave them bread and wine – not His literal flesh and blood. As it is, He has a physical glorified body and sits in Heaven. He cannot be parceled out by countless “priests” who think they can command Him to come and turn into a piece of bread or a cup of wine.

      • November 17, 2016 at 3:53 pm

        where does it say that he cannot manifest himself in bread? where does it say that? You ask for citations and you cannot even provide citations for your stance

      • November 17, 2016 at 3:43 pm

        Where in the bible does it clarify that you must wait until you’re older to be baptized?

      • November 17, 2016 at 3:46 pm

        where in the bible does it say that only the scriptures are infallible?

      • November 17, 2016 at 3:49 pm

        “39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” -Jesus

  8. November 17, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    You call yourself the truth unchanging and yet the earliest historical evidence of your beliefs is the year 1400’s at best and guess what, it’s not even written in the bible!

    The real TRUTH is that the entire bible reflects the sacrifice of Jesus in the Eucharist. If you read the OT and NT in light of this you will see! But you don’t want the fullness of truth. You want the half truth that this Randy guy thinks he can give you. You want a watered down version of the truth because the real truth is too much for you. The real truth is too awesome for you to accept. You don’t really believe in almighty power of God because you can’t even believe that He can manifest Himself in something as simple as a piece of bread even though that’s clearly what Jesus says. You do not believe in the mercy of Jesus because you cannot even believe that he can and does give his grace and mercy to a young child before they’ve even spoken their first words, even though I’ve literally given you the bible verse where it says this. You prefer to believe that God is so unorganized and so mean that He would leave his people with out giving authority to anyone to teach and explain His word. You’d rather give God’s authority (which is not yours to give) to a mere blogger on the internet. You would rather accept the chaos and the splitting of Jesus’s church than actually have to obey His commands! You’d rather make up lies about the Church and post about it on the internet so you can continue to support your false claims then actually research the doctrine.

    So I’m not surprised that my comments/questions have you so upset! You don’t want people to challenge you to discover real truth because you are more comfortable following this false teaching.

    • November 18, 2016 at 12:50 pm

      You will always err when you base your theology on such questions you asked – Where in the Bible does it say Jesus cannot manifest Himself in bread? We are to search out what did God say and we find that only in the Scriptures, not in the voluminous libraries written by men.

    • November 18, 2016 at 1:10 pm

      I am not upset in the least, but I will simply not waste my time replying to anymore of your statements from a false and blasphemous religion established by a bunch of perverts. There is but one head of the church and the unholy lot who have presumed to usurp that title will burn in the hottest part of the lake of fire. Now believe me when I tell you I do not wish to discuss this subject with youn any further since you obviously place your traditions above the Word of God.

  9. November 18, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    Val, In their agreement with the Sacred Scriptures. You do not hold to Biblical authority and we do not claim inerrancy and infallibility for what we have written. Now go away.

    • November 18, 2016 at 1:42 pm

      The reason why I even looked up your blog in the first place is because I wanted to see if there is really biblical support for what you believe or even logical reasons for your beliefs. Even if I don’t agree I was searching for an argument that supports your claims so I can at least understand why you believe these notions. But I’m realizing that I’m searching for truth where there is none. You can not provide me these things because you don’t have it. Because you think that making it up until you can find a way to make it sound true is OK.

      But don’t worry I have not left unsatisfied. I feel satisfied that if I have a question about the scripture I can look to the catechism or other writings to better understand. I do however feel sorry for you and your readers that must be always in a state of confusion. They look to you and you don’t even claim to have the answers… They must feel so unsatisfied when you just tell them to “go away” because their question was too difficult for you to answer. Maybe they should look at another blog or writer? OR maybe they should look at the oldest writings of the church?

      May God bless you and I do hope you find fulfillment. And I challenge you to keep searching for the answers to my questions anyways.

  10. November 18, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    You were not searching for anything but an argument. I am not going to waste time discussing issues with people who have a different standard of authority. If you are going to retreat to your “church” tradition or your catechism everytime I make a point, it would be a waste of my time to explain our views based on the Scripture alone. If you cannot understand that when Paul wrote, “that rock was Christ” he did not mean that rock was “Spiritually transformed” [whatever that is supposed to mean] into Christ, but that that rock was divinely intended as a typical representation of Christ, there is nothing I can write that is going to make a difference. If you have specific questions about our beliefs, I will be happy to try to answer them, but your initial post makes it clear that you did not comment here seeking information. Your choice is clear. You can continue to believe the damnable doctrines of a pagan system and perish in your sins or you can believe God’s truth revealed in the Bible and enjoy eternal life.

    • November 18, 2016 at 2:38 pm

      You still have not provided any biblical evidence for your claim.. and the only time I even responded to your attacks on the church which are completely off topic from the questions I responded with bible verses.

    • November 18, 2016 at 2:45 pm

      Maybe we could start with a simple question. Jesus says “this is my body” you say “this is a representation of the body”, Jesus says “this is the sign of the new covenant” you say “this is not the sign of the covenant but a representation of it”. So my question is, can you provide biblical or even historical if you prefer, evidence of your claim. Please, do not answer with an off topic claim that the Roman Catholic church is wrong because blah blah blah. That’s not what I am asking you. I’m asking you why you are correct?

  11. November 18, 2016 at 2:39 pm

    Besides what does it matter to you what reason I am here. If you have truth you should be able to provide it whether or not we agree. Proof is proof there is no opinion in it.

  12. November 19, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    The New Covenant is what it is. It was referred to as the NC as soon as it was promised and from that point, the Mosaic Covenant became the Old Covenant. Read my commentary on Hebrews [Looking to Jesus] for a much fuller treatment of this subject [If you can’t afford $ 5.95 to buy it at Amazon Kindle, let me know and I will send you a free copy]. The cup did not become the New Covenant itself but a representation of it. Actually, I did say it is the sign of the covenant. That is what the article is all about. The reason I say Jesus meant “this is my body” meant this “represents my body” is the same reason I say the cup itself was not the covenant but a representation of the blood [sacrificial death] that ratified that covenant. If you read the book of Hebrews, you will find that Our Great Priest has established that Covenant by his blood, not by a cup full of wine. Additionally, the bread Jesus was holding could not have been his body since his body was present with them in its entirety when he spoke those words. Would you argue that he had two bodies at that point, one reclining at the table and one in his hand? That would make no sense at all. If you have further questions after you read my commentary on Hebrews, I will try to answer them. You are right. Proof is proof but some are so blinded by their traditions they are unable to see it.

    • 45 Valeria Mercado
      November 20, 2016 at 6:32 pm

      I see your point (I don’t think he’s saying he has 2 bodies I think he’s saying the bread becomes his body which he can do because he’s God) but then what do you make of the crowds asking him “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?” during the bread of life discourse. This was the only time that he was asked to clarify any of his I am statements and he didn’t clarify it he actually amplified the statement saying “53
      Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
      Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
      For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
      Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
      Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b
      This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

      • November 21, 2016 at 2:45 am

        The unbelieving Jews often misunderstood Jesus’ words, taking them in a crassly literalistic sense when he intended them in a spiritual sence. I believe it was in a spiritual sense that he was calling on them to eat his flesh and drink his blood in the bread of life discourse. That is, he was calling them to appropriate by faith the benefits of what he would accomplish in the offering up of his body and blood as the sacrifice for his people’s sins. One of the more helpful comments I have ever read was from C.K Barrett on this passage. He distinguished the real bread [manna] in the desert from the True bread [Jesus] that the real bread typified. Jesus often referred to himself as the “True” as opposed to the typical. Most often, if not always, he was the spiritual reality of what the OT type was in a physical sense, e.g., light, water, bread, vine. In none of these cases does he become in a physical sense what those types were in a physical sense. Instead, he became the spiritual reality of what they were physically. What he was teaching in the BOL discourse is that only if we partake of him in a spiritual way by faith and continue to do so [he uses a word that means “to graze” or “to munch” signifying the need for an ongoing appropriation by faith of all that he would become in his work of redemption.

      • November 21, 2016 at 1:18 pm

        Ok… I completely agree that is what he meant. His spirit took on the presence of bread and wine. So I agree with you that he’s calling on them on the spiritual but I also believe it was physical too.

        And the thing is, he is the physical son of God. So you can’t say that he never became the physical. The word became flesh. The whole old testament lead up to the physical birth of the physical God. You just can’t deny that Jesus said “you must eat my flesh” and “this is my body”. None of the other I am statements are the same. No one confronted him when he said “I am the vine, you are the branches” or “I am the door”. None of the other I am statements complete the narrative thread of the rest of the bible. I don’t understand why you deny such plain words. It’s not like he only said it once he says it in all 4 gospels and in John he says it like 8 times. All of the Gospels lead up to the institution of the Eucharist. It wouldn’t make sense for him to become physical only to revert back to being a spirit. I mean, do you believe that Jesus is with you but only in spirit not in the flesh?

      • November 21, 2016 at 10:33 pm

        What you need to understand is that though no one confronted him when he said I am the door and I am the vine etc., no one seemed to understand him as claiming to be a literal door or a literal vine either. Those who had an issue with eating his flesh and drinking his blood had a problem because they were talking his words in a literal sense. Remember as well that these were unbelievers who were being urged to partake of Christ by faith. What I am denying is that the bread and wine are themselves are in any way transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ. These elements are intended to bring him and his substitionary sacrifice to our minds. They represent the gospel narriative in a graphic way. When we see them and partake of them, we are to remember him and what he has accomplished for his believing people.

        No one is denying that the eternal Logos became flesh and continues to be in a physical body, but Paul wrote, “Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him in this way no longer” (2 Cor. 6:16). The important issue for us believers is that we have a great priest who has passed through the heavens who now appears in our nature [i.e. in a body like ours as a true human being] and continues to present the finished results of his sacrificial work before his Father’s throne. And, no I don’t believe Jesus is with us in the body, but I do believe the same Jesus who passed into the heavens as his disciples looked on will come again in the same way and THEN in we will forever be with him physically.

      • November 21, 2016 at 1:37 pm

        “3It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh* is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.”

        It doesn’t make sense why this would have been such a big deal that people would literally leave him if he was only talking spiritually and not physically also.

      • November 21, 2016 at 1:39 pm

        and by the way you still havn’t really answered the “why should I believe you question” but we can come back to that.

  13. November 21, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    I don’t want to say it but what would be the point of becoming man then? Why wouldn’t he have just stayed a spirit the whole time. The people in his time already had the scriptures and already had a spiritual God. God can do anything so if he wanted to save us and even if he wanted to show us justice he could have done so with out having a son don’t you think?

    I think he chose to become flesh so that he could institute this feast so that we can partake in it.

    • November 22, 2016 at 1:12 am

      It is an interesting question you raise. It is that precise question the Book of Hebrews answers in chapter two. The author tells us that Jesus was for a little while made lower than the angels so that he might taste death for the many sons that God would bring to glory (2:9-10) and that he might sympathize with the weaknesses of his people as part of a fallen creation (2:18).

      It is not accurate to say God can do anything. The Bible tells us of several things God cannot do. He cannot lie; he cannot fail; he cannot change; he cannot deny himself; he cannot act contrary to his character; he cannot save people in a way that is not suitable to that character. This is why they writer to the Hebrews wrote “For it was fitting for him for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings” (v. 10). God could only save his people by satisfying his own righteous demands and no other savior could accomplish such a goal but one who was was fully God so that his death might have infinite value and one who was fully human so that he might die as a substitute for his people.

      The reason Jesus became man is made clear in verses 14-15, “For as much as the children are made partakers of flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared in the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”

      I would invite you again to purchase my commentary on Hebrews on Amazon Kindle. If you cannot afford it, let me know and I will email it to you. I think you will find many answers you are seeking in that commentary.

  14. November 21, 2016 at 11:12 pm

    Let me first answer your “why should you believe me” question? The answer is simple. You should not unless the Scriptures bear witness to what I write to you. We must all have a Berean spirit. The Bereans were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11).

  15. November 21, 2016 at 11:52 pm

    Valeria, You wrote, “3It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh* is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.”

    It doesn’t make sense why this would have been such a big deal that people would literally leave him if he was only talking spiritually and not physically also.”

    People left him because they had hearts of stone and had completely misconstrued his statements. They had understood him to mean they needed to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. His answer to them was “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life” (John 6:63). This should lead anyone away from the idea that Jesus was suggesting that they needed to feast on his literal body. His words are spiritual and life-giving. The reason they went back and no longer were walking with him is found in verse 65. They had thought that salvation was in their hands and under their control, but Jesus reminded them that they were at God’s mercy. In verse 66 John tells us ‘εκ τοὐτου from that, many went back. People who are not truly believers go back when confronted with truth unless the Father has drawn them to Christ.

    • November 22, 2016 at 7:26 pm

      Thank you for your answer. I feel satisfied that you get this conclusion from this verse rather than some unfounded teaching…However, I disagree with your conclusions.

      To respond to the understanding that the issue of the crowds was the literal flesh, that is almost correct. The reason why the crowds were outraged at first was because Jesus was starting to reveal is true nature (God). But later when they say “How can he give us his flesh to eat” it is because they are thinking of a piece of dead flesh, they are picturing cannibalism. But that’s not what Jesus was saying. They were not understanding that Jesus is giving his resurrected body. So yes, they were confused which is why Jesus clarified saying it is the Spirit that gives life. He is not clarifying that the bread is a representation of his body he’s clarifying that he is not asking them to participate in cannibalism.
      Now, just because Jesus let them leave it does not mean that he was saying it’s a representation. Jesus does not say take back his previous statements he says “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Why say that only to contradict his statement later saying “don’t worry it’s not really my flesh”

      And in case you wonder “how can he give them the resurrected body before he’s resurrected?” it is because Jesus transcends space and time. He is con-substantial with the father. So the same way God has always existed and yet he was born of the Virgin Mary the same way Jesus is present both in person and at same time the resurrected body is present in the bread (and the substance of bread is also present at the same time). And to go along with it his blood, soul, and divinity are also present in the Eucharist which is why he says this is the bread that came from heaven. The reason why he says his words are life is because they are. You cannot receive Christ without hearing, understanding, receiving these words that he gives. For an example, were it not for the apostles spreading the gospel no one would ever have heard about the resurrection and therefore no one could have accepted Jesus.

      And to respond to the why God would manifest in a human body at all, I understand that Jesus needed to physically die in order to physically resurrect/overcome physical death and save our physical bodies as well as our souls. But my point is that it is clear from the scripture that there is still something more for us to do that Jesus himself called us to and that is to accept. Receive him through our spirit and our body which is why he became man and instituted this feast celebration. Why give us bodies if not to also redeem them? He could have created only souls with no bodies and therefore not needed to become man. Why would Jesus hold up a piece of bread and say “This is my body, take it and eat it” if he didn’t mean it? So far you still have no sources or proof that it was meant as a metaphor. Just because other times He used metaphors when speaking that doesn’t mean he always used metaphors, especially when he was with his apostles he was clearer about things with them.

      I do not understand how you get they thought salvation was under their control out of “no one comes to the father except through me” Yes, they were confronted with truth, a hard truth which is why they left it does not mean that the bread is a representation.

      The disciples did not always take Jesus literally because in the other instances that we discussed they understood that he was speaking in parables or metaphors even if they did not exactly know what it was that he meant by them. And I think most of the parables that were misunderstood, Jesus does clarify to the apostles in private. When he says “What if you were to see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before” was he talking symbolically? No, even you state that Jesus’s body physically ascended. But what was the need for that question that Jesus asked? It’s to tell them, if you’re surprised by my words just wait until you see my body ascend, are you going to question me then???

      And to respond to the “why should I believe you” you say, I should not unless the scripture bear witness but you have given no scriptural evidence to your claims, rather conclusions that you’ve made based on “if your smart enough you can just tell” reasoning. That’s not good enough, God does not leave his people to figure it out like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. God is a God of order. Jesus built a church and if anyone has any authority to interpret the scriptures at all it’s the apostles. Scripture and basic reasoning both support the idea that Jesus wanted it so that church authority would be passed down generation by generation. In the Old Testament that is how it needed to function because otherwise the Passover and the Mosaic Law would have been long forgotten by the time Jesus came. So, I’m not saying the popes are perfect or the priests are perfect because clearly they are not but if the Holy Spirit can use mere mortal sinning men to write the scriptures infallibly then why what evidence do we have that the Holy Spirit still does not use authorities of the church today? You cannot attack the authority of priest or the Catholic Church without also attacking yourself and God’s design. It was not my idea or my priest’s idea to set up a Church that can survive countless generations by using sinners and mortals to pass on the legacy. That was God’s plan, God’s way of doing it. The same way he proclaimed his prophecy and his legacy in the OT. Everything that the Catholic Church teaches is backed up by scripture or sometimes points to early councils of the church but even then it has scriptural bases. These notions of Sola Scriptura, the bread being a representation, the church teachings being fallible, these are all brand new, not found anywhere in the bible and not practiced by any of the earliest Christians. These are an attempts of Satan to skew the church and cause chaos and confusion. Now, I do agree that some shady stuff and corruption was happening in the church during the time of the protestant reformation, however, that does not mean that the teachings of the church were wrong. I agree that the church needed to be confronted with this blasphemy of actions in God’s name, however, that has nothing to do with doctrines.

  16. November 23, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    One of your primary misconceptions is that John 6 refers to the communion table in the first place. That completely misses the point of Jesus’ words. Additionally, you obviously view this ordinance as if it had saving efficacy. I understand this coming from someone who elevates the tradition of the so-called church above the Scriptures. In considering so called church doctrine, you need to consider that much of what has been set down as such doctrine is self-contradictory and violates an important canon of logic–Two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same relationship. The “Church” has contradicted itself often over the centuries. If church tradition is to be our authority, perhaps you can identify which of those contradictory statements is to be authoritative. As I stated much earlier, discussion between us will always be futile since we have different standards of authority. My standard of authority is God’s Word revealed in the Scriptures and interpreted in its historical, cultural and literary contexts.

    Before I end this discussion, let me correct some of your misstatements.

    1. You wrote, “I do not understand how you get they thought salvation was under their control out of “no one comes to the father except through me”’ If you had read the verse I cited, you would have seen that he did not say “No one can come to the Father except through me.” That is another verse altogether. The verse I cited says “no one is able to come to me unless it has been given to him by my Father.” This teaches that salvation is under God’s control and not under the sinner’s control. It is a truth that is offensive to people bound by sinful nature.

    2. You wrote, “And to respond to the “why should I believe you” you say, I should not unless the scripture bear witness but you have given no scriptural evidence to your claims, rather conclusions that you’ve made based on “if your smart enough you can just tell” reasoning.” Perhaps you can show me where I said anything about being “smart enough so that you can just tell.” If you can show me that statement, I will be happy to retract it.

    3. Though you did not state it, your assumption is that there is an apostolic succession through-out history. That is probably what divides us more than anything else and makes real and meaningful discussion between us futile. If any mere mortal is able to preach another gospel that contradicts the gospel Paul and the NT apostles preached, that person is under the curse of God (Gal. 1:8).

    I believe you have many misconceptions about the person of Christ, about the hypostatic union, the relationshipship between the persons of the Trinity etc., but it is beyond the scope of this thread to discuss such issues.

    Thank you for stopping by and commenting. I hope you will take the time to read many of the other articles I have written. It has become clear that you have no interest in the books I have written, since you have not taken me up on my offer.

  17. December 2, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    Val, There is a difference between interpreting the Scriptures and claiming infallibility for such interpretations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: