- September 19, 2011
- View Comments
- Videos
Jesus Is The Pascal Lamb
Visit us on Facebook at 100PercentCatholic.com
From the talk True Presence of Jesus By Rich May. For this entire recording as well as others like it, please visit embracethegrace.com
Many people wonder why Jesus would want us to eat his flesh. Before I answer that, let me backtrack a little. I think every Christian denomination would agree that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice. Just like the lambs that had to be sacrificed during Passover had to be without blemish (Exodus 12:5), Jesus was also without blemish (Hebrews 9:14, 1 Peter 1:19). Jesus’ bones were not broken (and breaking bones were common during crucifixions, see John 19:31-36), just as the sacrificial lambs could not have broken bones (Exodus 12:46). Also, Jesus’ execution was happening at the time of Passover (Luke 22:1-2). John 19:14 gives us the detail that it was preparation day for the Passover at about noon, because that is the time that Israel’s priests slaughtered the lambs in preparation for the Passover meal. John further connects Jesus to the Passover lamb by telling us that Jesus was given a wine soaked sponge raised up to him with a hyssop branch (John 19:29). So why the detail on what type of branch it was? In the Old Testament, the Jews were told to rub the blood of the sacrificial lamb on their doorposts using a hyssop branch (Exodus 12:22).
These verses that show the many parallels between the Passover lamb and the sacrifice of Jesus should clearly demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant Passover lamb. This is why John the Baptist refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:29) and Paul refers to Jesus as the paschal lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7-8). Note that the root “pasch” comes from the Hebrew word for Passover, so when you see the word paschal as Paul uses it here, he is referring to the Passover. So Paul saw the connection between the sacrifice of Jesus and the Passover lamb, as did the earliest Christians. The word for Easter in most languages comes from the word Paschal (with English being a rare exception).
The Pascal lamb is an example of a type, which is a person, thing or event in the Old Testament that prefigures something in the New Testament. Those who read the Bible with a strict literal sense and never examine the typological sense are missing out on a lot of hidden meaning that God has conveyed to us. Many people see the Bible as a bunch of different books and do not realize the parallels like this from the Old and New Testament. That is one of the beautiful things that we have in the Catholic mass. Every mass has a reading from the Old and New Testament. However, these readings are not just chosen at random. They actually parallel each other, as the priest will usually explain in his homily. The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament. When you see a Bible verse in which the author gives detail that appears to be pointless (such as the type of branch that Jesus drank wine from while on the cross), there is usually good reason for this. The Bible is a very deep book and is filled with all sorts of hidden meaning like this. But after all, would you expect anything less from the word of God?
Now, let me get back to the original question. Why would Jesus want us to eat his flesh? Well, another interesting fact about the Passover lamb is that it was not enough to just sacrifice it, but the sacrifice had to be consumed (Exodus 12:8,11). During the Exodus, people were instructed to sacrifice a lamb and rub the blood around their door to avoid the death of their first born, but this was not enough. If the people would not have consumed the sacrifice, they would have woken up in the morning to find their first born child dead. If people thought that Moses meant to only symbolically eat the flesh of the lamb and would have only ate a cracker with a picture of a lamb on it, this would not have been sufficient to avoid the Angel of Death. Just as it was necessary to eat the Passover lamb to avoid the Angel of Death, we must eat the flesh of the new Passover lamb in order to avoid spiritual death.
To read this article in its entirety, visit us on Facebook at 100PercentCatholic.com or click on this link http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=212314575474491
- September 19, 2011
- View Comments
- Videos
Is John 6 Symbolic?
Visit us on Facebook at 100PercentCatholic.com
From the talk True Presence of Jesus By Rich May. For this entire recording as well as others like it, please visit embracethegrace.com
Jesus left no room for doubt on the importance of receiving the Eucharist. In John 6:35-59, Jesus tells us again and again that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. He uses very strong language, such as “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” (John 6:53). Some people have tried to argue that Jesus was only speaking figuratively when he told his disciples this. But Jesus made it clear that his flesh is true food, and his blood is true drink (John 6:55). Then, a few verses later in John 6:66, it says that many of Jesus’ disciples left him and returned to their former way of life. Why would they do this if Jesus was only speaking figuratively? Or if it was a misunderstanding, why didn’t Jesus try to stop them? He had worked so hard to gain followers. Do you think he would let some leave over a misunderstanding? Wouldn’t he have cleared up the misunderstanding like he did so many other times in scripture, such as in John 3:1-5 when Nicodemus misunderstood being “born again” or in Matthew 16:5-12 when the disciples misunderstood when Jesus spoke about the “leaven” of the Pharisees and Saducees? Mark 4:34 says that Jesus always explained everything to his disciples. Why would he not do so here?
Some also argue that Jesus spoke symbolically in other places in scripture, like when he calls himself the door (John 10:7) or the vine (John 15:1-5). While it is true that Jesus sometimes speaks metaphorically and sometimes literally, notice that the disciples understood him to be speaking symbolically in these verses. They do not ask Jesus “Are you really a door” or “Are you really a vine.” But there is no question that his disciples took him literally in John 6. That is why they said “How can this man give us his flesh to eat” (John 6:52) and “This saying is hard; who can accept it” (John 6:60). Would it really be so hard to accept if Jesus was only speaking symbolically? Remember, this is the first and only time that Jesus’ own disciples actually left him and returned to their former way of life. But Jesus never calls them back or says that he is only speaking symbolically. Jesus even asks his twelve apostles “Do you also want to leave” (John 6:67). Jesus felt so strongly about this teaching that he was willing to lose his twelve apostles over it. Can anyone who claims that Jesus is speaking symbolically in John 6 find any other place in all of scripture where Jesus loses his own followers over a misunderstanding?
The truth is that Jesus was not speaking figuratively. If you read all of John Chapter 6, you will see it begins by telling us in John 6:4 that Passover was near (prefiguring the Last Supper). Jesus then performs two other great miracles. The miracle of the multiplication of loaves and fish and walking on water are performed by Jesus the day before he tells everyone about the Eucharist. That is because he knew this teaching would shock them. He was trying to prepare his disciples for the miracle to come. So if Jesus can multiply loaves, which proves that he can do anything with bread, and then walk on water, which proves he can defy the laws of nature, then why can’t he turn bread and wine into his body and blood?
Another interesting point is that the Greek text uses the word phago in verses 23-53, which translates into eat or consume. But after the Jews start quarreling over the teaching, the Greek changes to trogo in four places (John 6:54,56,57,58), which translates to gnawing or chewing with one’s teeth. This does not sound like the words of symbolic language to me. In Greek, trogo is never used metaphorically. Also, Jesus says in John 6:51 “The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” But Jesus gave his flesh for the life of the world on the cross, right? So if Jesus is only speaking symbolically in John 6, then wouldn’t that mean that he only gave his symbolic flesh on the cross? Also, every time the Bible mentions symbolically eating body and blood, it is always in a negative context to a physical assault and destroying an enemy (Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:20, 49:26, Micah 3:3, Rev. 16:6). It just does not make sense that Jesus would say that those who assault him will have eternal life.
To read this article in its entirety, visit us on Facebook at 100PercentCatholic.com or click on this link http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=212314575474491