Share

Types and-Shadows-Reveal-Jesus-throughout the-Old-Testament-author-Scott-LaPierre

Types and Shadows Reveal Jesus Christ in the Old Testament

Feel free to share!

Many people enjoy reading about Jesus in the New Testament without knowing He’s revealed throughout the Old Testament in types and shadows. In the Bible, we have an account of someone finding Jesus and recognizing He is the Messiah. The person was Philip and he wanted his friend, Nathaniel, to meet Him too. When Philip spoke to Nathaniel, he revealed why he thought Jesus was the Messiah:

“We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the Prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

John 1:45

The “Law and the Prophets” was a title for the Old Testament before the New Testament was written. Philip understood the Old Testament was about Jesus, which is why he believed Jesus was the Messiah. He expected Nathaniel to be convinced He was the Messiah as well because he would also recognize Him as the One identified in the Law and the Prophets.

Jesus Said the Old Testament Is About Him

  • Luke 24:27—“Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, [Jesus] expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.”
  • Luke 24:44—“[Jesus] said, ‘All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’”
  • John 5:39, 46—”You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me…For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.”
  • Hebrews 10:7—“[Jesus said,] ‘Behold, I have come—in the volume of the book it is written of Me.’”

Jesus Is Primarily Revealed Two Ways in the Old Testament

First, there are prophecies of Him. For example these verses state He would:

  • Be from the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10)
  • Receive King David’s throne (2 Samuel 7:12-13)
  • Be spat upon and beaten (Isaiah 50:6)
  • Be silent in the face of accusations (Isaiah 53:7)
  • Spend a season in Egypt (Hosea 11:1)
  • Ride into Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9)

And the list goes on. And on. And on. Jesus fulfilled around 350 prophecies in His first coming.

The second way the Old Testament reveals Jesus is through types and shadows:

  • Hebrews 10:1 says, “The law [was only] a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities” (ESV).
  • Colossians 2:16-17 says a “festival or a new moon or sabbaths [are] a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.”

“Shadows” are a fitting way to describe the types of Christ in the Old Testament because shadows provide an idea of what something looks like without completely revealing the object. The Old Testament does this with Christ. A shadow is evidence that something is casting it, or in the case of Christ, it is Someone. Finally, nobody looks at a shadow and believes it is the real thing. Nobody sees the shadow of a tree or car and thinks it is a tree or car. Shadows have no substance. They are not the reality. In Colossians 2:17, Jesus is the substance and in Hebrews 10:1, He is the reality.

The New Testament identifies many types and shadows of Christ in the Old Testament

  • Matthew 12:40 compares Jesus with Jonah: “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
  • John 3:14 compares Jesus with the Bronze Serpent: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” The bronze serpent looked forward to Christ redeeming us from the curse of the law.
  • John 6:32-33 compares Jesus with the manna: “Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
  • Romans 5:14 compares Jesus with Adam: “Adam is a type of Him who was to come.”
  • First Corinthians 5:7 compares Jesus with the Passover Lamb: “For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.”
  • First Corinthians 10:4 compares Jesus with the rock that accompanied Israel in the wilderness: “[Israel] drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.”
  • Hebrews 6:18 compares Jesus with the cities of refuge: “We who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.”
  • Hebrews 10:20 compares Jesus’ body with the veil in the temple that when “torn” on the cross revealed the access believers have to the Father: “[We have] a new and living way [to God] which [Jesus] consecrated for us, through the veil, [which] is, His flesh.”
  • Hebrews 11:17-19 compares Isaac with Jesus. When Abraham sacrificed his son, it was a picture of God sacrificing His Son: “Abraham…offered up Isaac…He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead.”

Certain people serve as types and shadows of Christ


Watch this sermon I delivered as a guest preacher about Jonah serving as a type and shadow of Jesus Christ…


Certain practices looked forward to Christ

The law commanded sacrifices for sins, and each sacrifice looked forward to Jesus—the true and greater Sacrifice for sins. Circumcision has its fulfillment in Christ because He helps us put off our sinful flesh: “In [Christ] you were circumcised… without hands by putting off… the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ” (Colossians 2:11). Hebrews 4:1-9 says the rest people enjoyed on the Sabbath was a picture of the true and greater rest that is found in Christ.

Miracles in the Old Testament prefigured miracles Jesus would perform in a greater way

  • Moses unleashed ten judgments on one nation (Exodus 7–12), but Jesus will unleash twenty-one judgments on the whole earth: “And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!’” (Revelation 6:15-16).
  • When the Man of God healed King Jeroboam’s withered hand (1 Kings 13:4-6), it prefigured Jesus healing the man with the withered hand (Luke 6:10).
  • God took Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11), but Jesus ascended to heaven on His own (Acts 1:9).
  • Elisha fed one hundred men with twenty loaves (2 Kings 4:42–44), but Jesus fed 5,000 and 4,000 men with five and seven loaves (Matthew 14:13–21 and 15:32–39).
  • Elisha cleansed one man of leprosy (2 Kings 5:1–14), but Jesus cleansed ten men (Luke 17:11–19).
  • Elisha knew what Gehazi had done (2 Kings 5:26), but Jesus knows what all men have done (John 2:24).
  • Elisha’s death gave one person temporary life (2 Kings 13:21), but Jesus’ death gives many people eternal life (Romans 5:18).

What is the purpose of all the prophecies and shadows? To lead people to Christ! Jesus said, “All the prophets and the law prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:13). Jesus was veiled throughout the Old Testament in the types and shadows, but when John the Baptist arrived as Jesus’ forerunner, He was no longer veiled. John pointed at Him and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

The Old Testament Serves as a Treasure Map to Jesus

Paul asked a question many people would answer incorrectly:

“What purpose then does the law serve?”

Galatians 3:19a

Typical answers would be something like, “To show you how to be a good person,” or “To help you get to heaven.” The law serves the opposite purpose! Instead of showing us how to be good, it shows us we are not good. When we become familiar with the law and see what it requires to be “good”—or righteous—we see we “have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed (Jesus) should come…

Galatians 3:19b

The New Testament was written in Greek, and the word for “transgression” is parabasis, which means, “going over.” People transgress when they know where God has drawn the line, but they step over it anyway. Although, people can only transgress if they know where the line is drawn. The law reveals the line, and thereby also our transgressions. Romans 3:20 says, “for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” The law helps us see our need for a Savior by revealing our sinfulness to us. When we look at the standard the law sets, we see how far short we fall from keeping it.

Romans 5:20 says “the law entered that the offense might abound.” This does not mean God gave the law so we would sin more. Instead, God gave the law so our sins would become clear. They would seem to be “abounding” or springing up around us. In Romans 7:7, Paul said, “I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet.’” Paul did not know he was sinning until he learned the law said not to covet!

The Law Reveals Our Need for the Savior

We naturally think we are good. Proverbs 16:2 and 21:2 say, “All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes,” and Proverbs 30:12 says, “There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes, yet is not washed from its filthiness.” How could filthy people think they are pure? They are not familiar with God’s law that would reveal their filthiness to them. Jeremiah had one of the most painful ministries in Scripture because he addressed sinful people who thought they were good. Notice his and God’s efforts at reaching them:

  • Jeremiah 2:23—[Jeremiah said], “How can you say, ‘I am not polluted, I have not gone after the Baals’? See your way in the valley; know what you have done: you are a swift dromedary breaking loose in her ways.” They thought they were not polluted, but they pursued idols like an animal in heat pursues a mate.
  • Jeremiah 2:35—[God said], “Yet you say, ‘Because I am innocent, surely His anger shall turn from me.’ Behold, I will plead My case against you, because you say, ‘I have not sinned.’” God said He would judge them because they were sinners who said they were innocent.

The problem with people who think they are not sinners is they see no need for a Savior. People only want:

  • A parachute when they know the plane is crashing
  • A cure when they learn they have a disease
  • The fire department when they know there is a fire

The law says, “Your plane is crashing… you have a disease… there is a fire!” This is what Jesus meant in Luke 5:31 when He said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” People who think they are spiritually healthy do not recognize their need for Jesus. The law can show them they are spiritually sick.

Despite how important the law is, it does not serve the same purpose throughout our lives. Paul says it lasts until we come to faith in Jesus (the Seed).

But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.

Galatians 3:23

We should not interpret this literally to mean there was a time when there was not faith. Justified means “declared righteous,” and the law cannot justify us because we are too sinful to obey it perfectly; therefore, God graciously allows justification to take place by faith. He says to wretched sinners, “Because of your faith in My Son, I will give you His righteousness.” Sadly, those unfamiliar with the gospel claim they are righteous because of the way they live, but the way they live only demonstrates their unrighteousness.

Two thousand years before Christ came:

[Abraham] believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

Genesis 15:6

Abraham was justified by faith. Believers in the Old Testament looked forward to Christ’s coming like believers in the New Testament look back on Christ’s coming. “Before faith” means before people put their faith in Christ. Until then the law “held [them] in custody” (NIV) or “kept [them] captive and imprisoned” (ESV).

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Galatians 3:24

When people become Christians, the Old Testament served its purpose in being a tutor—or treasure map—that led them to Christ.

But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Galatians 3:25

Just as “before faith came” meant before putting faith in Christ, “after faith has come” means after putting faith in Christ. At that point, we “no longer [need] a tutor,” because the law has served its purpose in our lives. The Old Testament served as a map to lead us to the treasure, which is Christ.

Don’t Miss the Treasure!

If you learned everything the Old Testament could teach—if you could recount every story, recite countless verses—but it did not lead you to Christ, then you have made the same mistake the religious leaders made in Jesus’ day. Jesus criticized them saying:

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me… If you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for He wrote about Me.

John 5:39, 46

If you miss that the Old Testament testifies of Christ, then you have failed to let it be your tutor.

  • In the language of Hebrews 10:1, you are missing the “reality,” which is Christ.
  • In the language of Colossians 2:17 you are overlooking the “substance” we find in Christ.

You have missed the treasure! You are looking at the shadow of a tree while saying, “Look at that amazing tree!” Instead, see Christ through all the wonderful types and shadows!

Discussion Questions to Answer in Comments Section

  1. Do you have any questions about types and shadows?
  2. Why did Jesus say the Old Testament is about Him?
  3. Why is it fitting to call Old Testament types of Christ shadows?
  4. What (or who) are your favorite examples of types and shadows?
  5. Can you think of types or shadows that people take too far?
  6. What purpose(s) does the law serve?

34 Responses

  1. As I stated before there is not mention in Torah of anyone by the name that Christians refer to as their savior. There is no Old Testament either, only Torah and the Torat/Torah Teachings imparted to His chosen seen through Yaakov/Yisrael whom he clearly states is YAHAVAH’s son, even His firstborn as written in Shemot/Exodus 4:20-22. He refers to a people in Shemot 4:21 and proceeds to describe those same people as his son and his firstborn in the subsequent verses. YAH’s word/devar is Torah Truth/Emet. His son is a nation of people who are the seed of Yaakov/Jacob whom He brought out of bondage in Mitzrayim/Egypt. The Moshiach or the person you Christians refer to as the Messiah is to be an emissary who is obedient to the Torat/Torah Teachings and given to Mosheh on Mount Behar Sinai during Mosheh’s 40 Days and Nights when he was given the creation by YUD HEY VAV HEY HaBara/The creator/HaAseh/The Maker. Again the name of the Mosiach is never mentioned anywhere in Torah and to make an assumption otherwise is to add to Torah contradicting Devarim/Deutoronomy 4:2 which states that this is not to be done. There was never a Brit Chadashah/New Testament found in the Torah Scrolls written by the inspired Neviim/Prophets designated and called by name/vayikra by YAHAVAH Himself. He clearly gives the name of every Nevi/Prophet in Torah yet there is no mention of a supposed son of god anywhere. This is Torah Emet/Truth. Torah clearly states that no man can die for the sins of another and the YAHAVAH Himself is Elohim all alone anthere is no other. That YAH is yeshuat/salvation Himself and there is none other. There is no Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, they are all fabricated as the were used to turn the Ivriy Torah Keepers away from YAHAVAH Himself as this is where there Chazak/Strength has always resided. Christianity is a pagan Greco-Romayim construct born of their pagan practices. They even deemed their Caesar were deities, this is why their nation was destroyed and no longer exists today. The fate of the Greco-Romayims themselves is told in Yoel as their sons and daughters who are the Yavaniym/the children of Yavan/Javan will eventually be sold into bondage themselves for their actions against the chosen seed of Yaakov/Jacob. There are no types and shadows as this is typical of pagan christian preachers who have been educated in the temple of the fallen Malakim who they serve. Here is why christians are pagans; They do not keep the Highest of the High Holy Days, the Seventh Day Shabbat in violation of the mitzvot of YAH, they are purveyors of pagan symbols and idols from the crosses around their neck and the symbols upon their so called churchs, to their pagan Holidays and the Asherah Trees that they raise up in their homes and churches as well. They raise a false elohim of YAHAVAH EL ELYON who is ELOHIM all alone as there is none other as written in the following scripture: Shemos (Exodus) 34:14, YeshaYahu (Isaiah) 45:5, Melekhim Bet (2 Kings) 19:19, Tehillim (Psalm) 83:18 just to name a few as it is written all over Torah in many places.

    1. GavrielYahu,
      Thank you for reading my post and then commenting.

      You are correct that Jesus’s name is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the consider these two verses, and there are other examples like these

      Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and HIS NAME SHALL BE CALLED WONDERFUL COUNSELOR, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, PRINCE OF PEACE.

      We know the Messiah didn’t get all these names. Instead, they’re titles He fulfilled. They describe Him. It’s like saying, “He shall be called doctor, lawyer, or teacher.” Those aren’t people’s name, but they’re fitting titles.

      Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And (referring to Jesus) THIS IS THE NAME BY WHICH HE WILL BE CALLED: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’

      The Messiah would not be called the Lord is our Righteousness, but it’s a fitting title, because He is our righteousness.
      1 Corinthians 1:30 You are in Christ Jesus, who became to us…righteousness
      2 Corinthians 5:21 [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

      You said the Messiah would be obedient to the Torah, or Law, and Jesus was: He kept the Law perfectly.

      You are correct that no ordinary man could die for the sins of another, but Jesus was the God-Man.

  2. What about tithes, could it be clarified as a shadow of something or was it pointing to something? Since tithes started well before the law, should be people continue to observe it or not? Jesus did not rebuke it but encouraged it ( this ought you to have done), but not much of it is spoken about in the Bible.
    Thank you for your good teachings!

    1. Hello Takesure,
      I don’t think tithes served as a type or shadow of anything. Christians are commanded to give today, but they are not commanded to give a tithe. Some people should probably give much more than 10 percent.

      Yes, Jesus said that they should tithe, but this was to people still under the Old Covenant. He had not yet instituted the New Covenant at the Last Supper. Please look at this post for more information about whether Christians are expected to tithe today.

  3. Thank you for sharing, God bless you, you’re a really blessing for this generation 😊, I am blessed to read this. Keep up the good work until Jesus comes.

  4. Hi Scott

    Back to the bread & wine turning into flesh & blood. I know how we can settle this issue once and for all. We use an endoscope or the new Pillcam. We could also go cheap and induce vomiting after taking communion and examine what comes out. Gross (I know, I know), but that will put an end to this little argument, don’t you think. Now we need a few volunteers and a controlled environment, otherwise we’ll have some monk in the Alps sending a letter to the pope claiming a miracle after discovering blood in his stool.

    Kind regards

    1. Eric,
      I understand you are joking, and I don’t really think this is something to joke about, considering people got sick and died in the early church when they partook in an unworthy manner.

      With that said, there is a point that can be drawn away from your comment. The elements wouldn’t be changed when someone consumed them. We can look at what is consumed and tell that it is red and juice/wine. There has obviously been no physical change to it as transubstantiation teaches. Jesus didn’t change the elements in his day and they are not changed in our day. They were symbolic in his day and they are symbolic in our day.

  5. Hi Scott,
    Great article! The showbread resting on the Table of the Presence, to me, looks forward to the way Jesus rests upon the altar of every Catholic Church, not merely representing God’s presence. You know how you said that Jesus takes the miracles of the Old Testament and ramps them up a bit? Well, as a Catholic, I agree with you. In the Catholic Mass, the bread resting on the altar after the consecration is, in fact, no longer bread, but is the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, true God and true man. What a miracle! Our Lord definitely loves us.

    1. Hello Lillian,
      Thank you for reading and commenting. I am blessed that my post ministered to you.

      I definitely agree with you that the showbread looked forward to Christ and serves as a type of Him as the true and greater bread from heaven.

      Although, I am sorry to tell you that I do not believe in the Catholic Church’s teaching on transubstantiation, that the bread and wine become the literal, physical body and blood of Christ. This is largely taken from Jesus’s words in John 6 when he talked to the people about eating his body and drinking his blood. We know Jesus frequently spoke in exaggerated terms, and this is one more example. Jesus used hyperbole – or exaggeration – to make His points:

      Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye when there’s a plank in your own eye?
      Hate your father and mother
      Cut off your hand and pluck out your eye
      A camel goes through the eye of a needle

      Again, Jesus was not speaking literally about eating his body and blood. This should be obvious from the fact that nobody ate his body or drank his blood. This was another example of symbolic spiritual language. He spoke physically but meant it spiritually. Just as we would consume food physically, we should consume him spiritually.

    2. Hi Scott.
      I am intrigued at your reply, and would like to offer a response. In John 6, the passage you are referring to has several places in which it is clear that Jesus is speaking literally. First of all, earlier in John 6, Jesus uses the word “phago”, a generic word for eating. Later, during the verses in question, namely John 6, 53-57, he switches to the word “trogo”, which means “to gnaw or chew”. In the same way, Jesus uses the word “sarx”, which refers to the soft, fleshy substance that covers our bones instead of the word “soma” which simply means body. Jesus’ word choice, as rendered in the Greek, makes it clear that He is talking about real, physical chewing and eating of His flesh. When I am told that Jesus’ words are a simple metaphor, it doesn’t quite make sense to me. It’s true that Jesus did ust metaphors to describe many things like: “I am the door”(John 10:9) or “I am the Vine.” However, He didn’t tell us to “oil his true hinges” or “water his true roots.” In the same way, no one rejected Jesus for using metaphors involving the door or the vine, but when Jesus said that a person must eat his flesh to have eternal life, many of His disciples walked away from Him.” Why didn’t Jesus stop them? Why didn’t He explain His metaphor like He had done so many times before, as in the camel/eye of the needle metaphor? Why did He let them walk away if He was only talking spiritually. Why did they say, “Lord, these are hard sayings”? Eating Jesus’ Body spiritually as you say is no harder to accept than many of Jesus’ other teachings like love your enemy.

      After His resurrection Jesus appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus. He did not allow them to recognize Him until after He blessed and broke the bread for them to eat. Jesus made it clear that after His resurrection all of His disciples would not see Him in a human form, but that he would be instead known to them, “in the breaking of the bread”(Luke 24:35)

      St. Paul told the Corinthians that whoever, “eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:27) Just sixty years later, Ignatius of Antioch, the disciple of St. John the Beloved, said, “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” J.N.D. Kelly admits that in the early Church, “the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s Body and Blood.”

      Anyway, I’d love to hear what you have to say. God Bless!

      Lillian

      1. Hello Lillian,
        I was raised in the Catholic Church, so I am familiar with transubstantiation. If it is clear that Jesus was speaking literally, then why didn’t anyone eat His flesh and drink His blood?

        It is interesting that you mentioned Jesus saying he is a door, vine, or in other places, a gate. Yet he wasn’t these things literally, right? He was these things spiritually. So why take his words in John six literally instead of spiritually?

        Yes, the disciples associated communion with Christ, but I’m not sure how that would convince us to interpret His words literally versus spiritually?

        Would you read this short “Answer” from GotQuestions.org about transubstantiation?

    3. Hi Scott,

      Thanks so much for your response! I’d like to draw on what you pointed out in my argument. I did mention that Jesus said that He is the door, vine, or gate. He said these things metaphorically, I agree. However, my question is, if He was talking about eating His Flesh in a metaphorical way, then why did so many people leave Him afterwards? And why did he let them? There are many other instances in Scripture when Jesus speaks metaphorically, and when people do not understand Him, he explains Himself. One example is when Jesus tells Nicodemus that He must be born again. Nicodemus is confused and bewildered as to how a man can be born again, but Jesus explains that a man must be born again “of the water and the Spirit.” Why did people leave Him? Eating bread that symbolizes Jesus is not a hard teaching, nor is drinking grape juice that symbolizes His blood. Furthermore, if He meant His words spiritually, why didn’t He explain Himself? He let them go. Why?

      I want to also address your first question, “Why didn’t anyone eat His flesh and drink His Blood?” Well, the amazing thing is, is that they did. On the night He was betrayed, and entered willingly into His Passion, He took bread, and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to His disciples saying, “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is My Body, which will be given up for you. After they had supped, He took the chalice into his Holy and venerable hands, and, giving thanks, He said to his disciples, “Take this, all of you, and drink of it, for this is the chalice of My Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” This was the time when Jesus changed bread and wine into His Body and Blood. This is the time when His disciples ate His Flesh and drank His Blood for the first time.

      In response to your third question, I would say, even if you don’t take into account the story of Emmaus, you still have St. Paul’s stark words to the Corinthians. St. Paul told the Corinthians that whoever “eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:27) Why does St. Paul say such serious things? Is it profanation of the Body and Blood of the Lord to eat symbollical bread and wine unworthily? And why wouldn’t St. Paul say something like, “He profanes the memory of the Lord,” or, “He profanes the assembly of the Lord”? I think the testimony of the early Church Fathers is also worth noting. Some of these men knew the apostles, who knew Jesus. They would know the teaching of Jesus better than we could deduce from the Gospels because they got it first-hand.

      Anyway, thanks so much, and have a blessed day!

      Lillian Belokur

      P.S. Thank you for the article, it is good to clear up everything about transubstantiation.

      1. Lillian,
        I appreciate your attitude during this discussion. Unfortunately, disagreements frequently become tense, and I am blessed that we have been able to disagree charitably.
        So many people left Jesus because they were spiritually blind. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but they were making the same mistake Catholics make: he was speaking spiritually, but they interpreted his words physically.
        It’s interesting that you mentioned Jesus’s discussion with Nicodemus, because that is another example of him speaking spiritually, but being misunderstood. Nicodemus, again, made the same mistake as Catholics, and thought he was speaking physically. The same in the following chapter with the woman the well. Jesus was speaking of spiritual water, but she thought he was speaking of physical water.
        You said they did eat his flesh and drink his blood. You only believe this because of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. There is nothing in Scripture to cause us to believe that people in Jesus’s day ate his flesh and drink his blood or should do so in the future. Instead, all the examples, including the ones you gave, are of Jesus speaking spiritually but being misunderstood as though he was speaking physically. Even at the Last Supper, which you mentioned, it is clear they ate bread and drank wine. They didn’t take a bite out of his body, and he didn’t open one of his veins for them to drink his blood.
        You said, “This was the time when Jesus changed bread and wine into his body and blood.” Again, it is only the false teaching of the Catholic Church that would lead people to this conclusion. There is nothing in Scripture to cause us to believe that a physical change took place to the bread and wine.
        Why did Paul say such serious things? Because taking communion is incredibly serious. To partake in an unworthy manner led to sickness and even death in the early church and we do well to heed that warning even today. But there is no reason to take that warning to mean that the bread and juice becomes the physical body and blood of Christ.
        Regarding the early church fathers believing in transubstantiation, you might want to look at this post: Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?
        May I ask you to honestly do something? Please look at the Catholic Church’s teachings, not just on transubstantiation, but regarding Mary, the Pope, the priesthood, and the list goes on and ask yourself if you would come up with these teachings if you were on an island and all you had was the Bible.
        Did you know I was raised in the Catholic Church? I was an altar boy growing up. I became a Christian in my early twenties when God graciously delivered me from the false teaching of Catholicism. It was very evident to me that much of what I believed was unbiblical. You seem very sincere and I pray that you will compare your beliefs, or in particular the teachings of the Catholic Church, with God’s Word.

        1. Hi Scott! I agree that there is no reason for disagreements to become tense, especially if we have minds open to the truth and if we treat each other with Christian charity. Thanks for caring about my soul so much that you are willing to continue this highly important conversation with me.

          I’m interested about the way you answered my first question, because I agree with you, to some extent. The disciples who left Jesus were spiritually blind. Obviously, if you leave Jesus, there is something wrong with you, not with His teaching. However, I’m not confused about why they left Him. It’s clear that they interpreted His words physically, because it’s not hard to believe that Jesus is going to be spiritually consumed at a meal of bread and wine. Why would they leave for that. My question is: Why did Jesus let them go. If He was speaking spiritually, why didn’t He just say so? That would be kind of odd to let them leave if it was just a misunderstanding. Jesus knows everything, and He would have known that they were thinking erroneously. So why didn’t He explain His mysterious words? For instance, many times He would explain His parables to the disciples. Why not then, in John 6?

          You said that I should look into the Church’s teaching on a number of things. I have, in fact, read the Baltimore Catechism, which gives a good explanation of many tenets of the Catholic Faith. The thing is, is that I don’t think that the Bible alone contains everything to be believed by Christians. Otherwise, how did the early Church get along? The Bible as we know it wasn’t around for many decades after Christ’s ascension, and then, after it was around, it wasn’t widely available until the printing press came around. St. Paul says to St. Timothy, “If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth.” This passage says that the Church, and not Scripture, is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth. So if the Church says something, I believe it whether it can be found directly spelled out in the Bible or not. Furthermore, I don’t believe that it could be possible for the Church and the Bible to be in contradiction since it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together, and decided which books were inspired or not. It was Catholic popes in the 400’s that ratified the canon of Scripture. This canon remained untouched until Martin Luther came in the 16th century and decided he could both add to and take away from Scripture. This is why I believe in doctrines such as the Papal Infallibility, the priesthood, and Mary, which aren’t directly spelled out in Scripture (but definitely aren’t contrary to it). I love the Church, but if you convince me, I am ready to convert. I follow Jesus.

        2. Hello again Lillian,
          There are many things in your comment I wanted to respond to, so I pasted it below and put my thoughts beneath certain parts…

          Hi Scott! I agree that there is no reason for disagreements to become tense, especially if we have minds open to the truth and if we treat each other with Christian charity. Thanks for caring about my soul so much that you are willing to continue this highly important conversation with me.

          You are welcome. It is important and I have appreciated your attitude.

          I’m interested about the way you answered my first question, because I agree with you, to some extent. The disciples who left Jesus were spiritually blind. Obviously, if you leave Jesus, there is something wrong with you, not with His teaching. However, I’m not confused about why they left Him. It’s clear that they interpreted His words physically, because it’s not hard to believe that Jesus is going to be spiritually consumed at a meal of bread and wine. Why would they leave for that. My question is: Why did Jesus let them go. If He was speaking spiritually, why didn’t He just say so? That would be kind of odd to let them leave if it was just a misunderstanding. Jesus knows everything, and He would have known that they were thinking erroneously. So why didn’t He explain His mysterious words? For instance, many times He would explain His parables to the disciples. Why not then, in John 6?

          Good question. I have wondered the same. I preached a sermon recently about this exact situation happening with Jesus on numerous occasions. I hope you will listen to it. Here’s the introduction…

          In college I went through Army ROTC, and after graduation I served as an officer. My military experience allowed me to have some familiarity with recruiters. Used car salesmen have the reputation for being dishonest and saying whatever’s necessary to make a sale. SOME military recruiters are a close second. Please notice I said some because I do think there are also some honest recruiters.

          Military recruiters must satisfy what’s known as “commission mission.” Their performance is determined by the number of people they’re able to recruit. As a result, they strive to make the military sound as attractive as possible, which creates a strong temptation for them to lie. There are horror stories of people who were promised things before they signed on the dotted line, only to find their military careers ended up being considerably different than what the recruiter promised.

          I tell you all this, because after I became a Christian in my early twenties and started reading the Gospels, I saw that Jesus is the opposite of military recruiters in two ways. First, He was honest. He wanted them to know what to expect if they followed Him. Second, it seems like He actually tried to DISCOURAGE people from signing up…yes, you heard me correctly! When you look at Jesus’ interactions with people, you’d almost think He didn’t want them following Him.

          You will see in this sermon that there are plenty of times that Jesus did not chase people down.

          You said that I should look into the Church’s teaching on a number of things. I have, in fact, read the Baltimore Catechism, which gives a good explanation of many tenets of the Catholic Faith. The thing is, is that I don’t think that the Bible alone contains everything to be believed by Christians.

          I appreciate you saying this, not because it is true, but because it is consistent and honest to your faith. Unfortunately, I have met Catholics who state that their beliefs are in the Bible, but this is intellectually dishonest. The Pope, purgatory, nuns, prayers to saints – to name a few – are simply not in Scripture.

          Otherwise, how did the early Church get along? The Bible as we know it wasn’t around for many decades after Christ’s ascension, and then, after it was around, it wasn’t widely available until the printing press came around.

          We know exactly how they got along, or how they figured out what church should look like. Acts 2:42 says, “ And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
          The question is, what was the apostles’ doctrine?

          “Doctrine” simply means teaching, so the apostles’ doctrine is what the apostles taught, or it’s the apostles’ teaching, and it fell into three categories:
          1. The 1st category of apostles’ doctrine was the Old Testament. This is what the early church taught and believed; just like Peter’s sermon earlier in this chapter and Stephen’s sermon in chapter 7 they were both heavily rooted in the OT. So the apostles taught the OT.
          2. The 2nd category of apostles’ doctrine was the teachings of Jesus. In Matthew 28 Jesus said to “make disciples…teaching them to observe all things that I have [taught] you.” So the apostles taught what Jesus taught them.
          3. The 3rd category of the apostles’ doctrine was the teachings of the Holy Spirit. In John 16:12-13 Jesus said, “I still have many things to say to you…when the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.” So the apostles taught what the Holy Spirit taught them.
          So the apostles’ doctrine is the Old Testament, the teachings of Jesus, and the teachings of the Holy Spirit, which together make up the Word of God.

          Then we find the apostles’ doctrine in the New Testament. You could say that most of the New Testament epistles are the apostles’ doctrine. In other words, the early church was following the New Testament, just like us.

          St. Paul says to St. Timothy, “If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth.” This passage says that the Church, and not Scripture, is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth. So if the Church says something, I believe it whether it can be found directly spelled out in the Bible or not.

          I’ve heard this quoted by a Catholic before and I completely disagree with this interpretation. You take this to mean that the church comes up with the truth, but the verse is saying that the church preaches and disseminates the truth.

          Furthermore, I don’t believe that it could be possible for the Church and the Bible to be in contradiction

          I interrupted your sentence, because I wanted to respond to this portion. It depends what you mean by this statement. There has been false teaching in the church since its inception. The false teaching contradicts the Bible. It is our responsibility to determine what is false teaching by comparing it with God’s Word. This is why I am no longer a Catholic.

          since it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together, and decided which books were inspired or not. It was Catholic popes in the 400’s that ratified the canon of Scripture. This canon remained untouched until Martin Luther came in the 16th century and decided he could both add to and take away from Scripture.

          We definitely disagree on how we have obtained our Bibles. I deleted much of what I wrote, because it would create another very lengthy discussion and this, it is already long. I preached a series during Sunday school to my church about how the Bible was canonized. Please let me know if you would like to listen to it.

          This is why I believe in doctrines such as the Papal Infallibility, the priesthood, and Mary, which aren’t directly spelled out in Scripture (but definitely aren’t contrary to it).

          I appreciate you acknowledging that these are not spelled out in Scripture, but I disagree with you that these do not contradict Scripture. The Pope and his office are heretical. Popes are recognized as substitutes for Christ on the earth. They stand in His place and are to be viewed as Him. It is blasphemous. Regarding the priesthood, any honest reading of Scripture recognizes that priests were to be Levites and they married and had children or else the line would have ended. What the Catholic Church has done with priests is unbiblical and sinful and the Catholic Church has suffered terribly, as have many Christians, because teaching on celibacy. They have called men to be celibate when they do not have the gift and in 1 Timothy for, Paul calls it a demonic doctrine. The New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers, in that all believers have access to the Lord. Acts 6:7 discusses priests in the early church leaving the priesthood to become Christians. Regarding Mary, there is nothing in Scripture to support praying to her or recognizing her as the Queen of Heaven. Heaven only has a King. There is nothing to support her perpetual virginity, because Scripture teaches that she had other children. The Catholic view of Mary is drawn from paganism. The list could go on. Suffice it to say not only are these teachings not in Scripture they contradict Scripture and are sinful and heretical.

          I love the Church, but if you convince me, I am ready to convert. I follow Jesus.

          It sure blesses me to read this. I do believe you are genuine and I will pray for you to recognize the truth. I spent over twenty years in the Catholic Church and I’m incredibly thankful that God delivered me from the false teaching into Christianity.

  6. Thank you my brother Scott for this excellent work,
    Scott, am writing a book titled “THE SHADOWS AND SUBSTANCE OF CHRIST JESUS” ( The declaration of Jesus), and in this book am not any different from your material that you have written, only that in my work , I have explicitly brought even the other natural things that declared the spiritual thing( Jesus); The goat declared Christ Jesus as away of purification for humanity.
    The tithe declared Christ Jesus in two major ways ( Jesus as our food and Honour).
    The first fruits too were natural, they illustrated and painted a picture Jesus resurrection.
    The solomon temple illustrated a picture of the real temple of God ( we are that temple).
    I mean talk about all the natural things that painted a picture of Christ.

    It’s very sad to say that the old testament testified of Jesus and at the same time say that tithe , first fruits are principles in this ministry of the spirit , it’s so sad. Because all these testified of Him.

    Scott my brother, what am talking about is happening in our churches to day and some ministers are still regarding the ” things” that declared Christ as important until now, instead they are supposed to refer to those things and show a believer the journey that the grace of God (Jesus is the grace of God, the spirit of grace) took to reach us.
    According to God , the substance couldn’t stand those days in the old testament when the shadows were still standing, and the shadows cannot stand now in the ministry of the spirit when the substance is already here, ( Jesus is the substance).
    Our object of faith is Jesus now.

    The lord gave me a parable to back up my material and am working on legal Rights to avoid it being adulterated.
    The book is coming to the market this year.

    Thanks .

    Brother Mutemo Baswali.

    1. Hello Mutemo,
      You are welcome. I am thankful that my post ministered to you.

      You said that in your book the natural things serve as types of Christ, if I understand you. How do you know when something should or shouldn’t serve as a type? I ask because not everything can serve as a type of Christ.

      For me, I look for confirmation in the New Testament.

  7. I’m very grateful for this, now I know the old testament is the tutor /
    and road map that led us to the messiah.

  8. I am in the process of writing the work I have done over the last few years regarding a Chronological approach to the Gospel Message, in and through the life of Christ. To do so I am researching materials leading up to the unveiling of the Kingdom.

    May I reference your material in points that may be helpful to the reader? I would certainly give credit where necessary.

    1. Robert,
      Yes, you can reference my material with a citation. You hyperlink to my site that would be great.

      I would love to see a copy of your work, especially the finished product. Perhaps even help support it once it’s finished.

      God bless,
      Scott

  9. For far too long I ignored the meat that is the Old Testament and I missed out on the rich treasure that can be found in abundance on every page. As Christians it is so easy to steer clear of reading it as it is a lot harder to digest and come to terms with, however when we have a change in heart as God gave me, we find that it is in fact with a little perseverance – invaluable. God is our exceedingly great reward and the most tangible form of God we have must be – His complete Word. Jesus always says it best:

    Matthew 5:17 & 18: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    We simply cannot afford to right off the Old Testament because we think that it speaks of a different God or a God of wrath. Under closer observation we find He is true to His Word and has never changed – Yesterday, today and tomorrow the same. Our beloved Father is Love, everything He has ever done was for Love. And God disciplines those He loves, when we choose to accept it we stand up in Him and become men/women of God and then He is able to bless us more richly. Sometimes we just need some encouragement. Thank you and God bless

    1. Greetings Shane,
      Thanks for the comment, and wonderful thoughts!

      Yes, regarding the “different God of the Old Testament” two of God’s most gracious acts in Scripture might be in the Old Testament:
      1. His forgiveness (and restoration) of Manasseh, one of the wickedest men in the Old Testament.
      2. His forgiveness of the Ninevites (in Jonah) some of the wickedest people in the Old Testament.

      May the Lord bless you too!

  10. That which is revealed; appropriately, the sacred truths which God has communicated to man for his instruction and direction. The revelations of God are contained in the Old and New Testament. Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

    Martin Luther once observed that no sooner does someone fall off a horse on the right side, than they get back on and proceed to fall off on the left side. The Torah-observant groups are in part a reaction against negative views of the Law found in some Christian circles. It is the unfortunate case that in much of evangelical Christianity the Old Testament is hardly taught, rarely preached on and little understood by the average congregant. Where the Law is mentioned, it is often portrayed as merely a burden from which Christians are now free.

    It is, however, equally important to note that the recognition that we are not intended to keep the Law of Moses today does not mean that Christians believe in lawlessness! The specific commands of the Law of Moses each reflected something of the nature of God, and behind each commandment is a principle. Those principles, reflecting God Himself, are still incumbent on all Christians today.

    Even though there is no longer a temple for ritual/cult sacrifice making it impossible to keep the 613 laws since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE— 369 commandments remain, of which 26 are applicable only in the Land of Israel.

    There are many teachings or interpretations of Torah from the Sages, Prophets, etc., documented from ancient, to medieval to modern times interpreting how we in any given period may apply the law to strive to holiness, care for individuals, poor, the community, health, application of legalism, our home the planet Earth… I am often in a place where the more that is studied, the more I feel eternity is required to understand the nature of God (Hashem) as it relates to God’s will for man (maturity that of a child) to the end of the age.

    Today a teacher, through a simple teaching imparted a revelation, humbling a student who will always be grateful for the blessing of the old/new testaments, as presented by the teacher. Modeh Ani (ּמודה אני)

    1. Hi Adrian,
      Thanks for reading and offering these thoughts!

      That’s a great analogy from Martin Luther. I agree that we tend to swing too far to one side and then correct by swinging too far to the other side. I love the Old Testament and have enjoyed preaching from it. My first two years at Woodland Christian Church were spent teaching verse-by-verse through 1 and 2 Samuel.

      Yes, not being under the Mosaic Law, or another way I’d say it is being under the New Covenant versus the Old Covenant, doesn’t mean the Old Testament is not beneficial. There’s no distinction between the testaments when Paul says all Scripture is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

  11. Hi Scott,

    My apologies….if what I wrote gave the impression that anything beyond “Jesus plus nothing” was required for salvation IMO. That was certainly not my intent. The paragraph you quoted wasn’t intended to convey that those were requirements of salvation….it was meant to explain the usefulness of understanding and reading Torah to better understand the faith that is Christianity as well as its roots in Judaism…in addition to convicting us of our sin as well as our inability to keep the 613 commandments which is why we needed Jesus’ sacrifice.

    What I really was saying was that unlike the new converts to “The Way” that Peter spoke to, who had a good understanding of the “Law and the Prophets”, new converts to Christianity today rarely have an OT background….so it just makes sense for them to read it along with the NT.

    I often say the biggest problem with the Bible is that people try to treat it like two different books. Rip out the page in between the OT and New….it’s the same book. It’s all inter-related.

    I will watch the sermon on Jonah, as I too believe it was literal and I believe Jesus’ commentary in Matt 12:40 was literal as well…but our timeline for “Good Friday” can’t substantiate the literal interpretation of Matt 12:40, unless Jesus wasn’t really crucified on Friday in the first place (my contention). That said, I’m perusing the site and can’t seem to find a link to the Jonah sermon.

    By chance do you have a link?

    Thanks.

    Peace be with you.

      1. Hi Sean,
        Yes, that’s the video. Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the video in the post itself. If you look in the post you’ll see it.

        Interested to hear your thoughts!

    1. Hi Sean,
      Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense.

      Yes, I agree that Christianity has its roots in Judaism (the Old Testament). When Paul wanted to explain the Gospel he used the Old Testament to do so, primarily Genesis 15:6 and Habakkuk 2:4.

      You said, “new converts to Christianity today rarely have an OT background….so it just makes sense for them to read it along with the NT.” I agree I just shared with my church today how unfortunate it is when the Old Testament is ignored. I love to teach from it and do so regularly. Yes, the Old and New are part of the same book, and should be viewed as one, with the New being the continuation of the old.

      Jesus could’ve been crucified on Thursday, to get the “three days and three nights.”

      I’m sorry, I meant the sermon about Jonah in the post itself. Scroll up and you’ll see it ?.

  12. The biblical definition of sin is transgression of Torah. Excellent article explaining how the “Law” convicts us of our sin so that we know we’ve transgressed it in the first place.

    In my other comment on the Law of Christ post, I was in agreement with the premise contained herein when I said, “…but the Torah is more like instructions on life in general, a guide to help us recognize our transgression of the Torah and convict us of our sin, and a foreshadowing of Jesus and his eventual reign on Earth.”

    The only *very* small nit I would pick is that many folks today come to Christ first….repent of their sins and accept him as their savior early in their belief. They were not raised in Judaism like the original people to whom Jesus preached. They lack the background of the “law and prophets” to lead them to the savior…..they intrinsically understand the sacrifice Jesus made for us by their conscience and the Holy Spirit. In light of that aspect, the Galatians 3:23-25 verses are slightly skewed in that often times newly converted “Christians” are in need of tutoring/guidance that the law and prophets help provide to further their spiritual development. After all, God wants to have an interpersonal, loving relationship with all of us and we are most effective at meeting that goal if we seek Him out and the best way I know of to accomplish that is to read all of His Word.

    One other thing; you mention the Sign of Jonah (Matt 12:40). On a few “Good Fridays” over the years I’ve done a decent amount of study on the concept. How do you account for the apparent discrepancy between the literal interpretation of the text and how many sects of Christianity choose to observe the Passion/Pesach/Feasts?

    Thanks again for an insightful article.

    1. Hello Sean,
      Again, I’ll respond below your thoughts…

      The biblical definition of sin is transgression of Torah.

      Yes, that is what 1 John 3:4 says: “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.”

      Excellent article explaining how the “Law” convicts us of our sin so that we know we’ve transgressed it in the first place.

      Yes, that’s what Romans 3:20 says: “through the law comes knowledge of sin.”

      In my other comment on the Law of Christ post, I was in agreement with the premise contained herein when I said, “…but the Torah is more like instructions on life in general, a guide to help us recognize our transgression of the Torah and convict us of our sin, and a foreshadowing of Jesus and his eventual reign on Earth.”

      Yes, all of the Old Testament, including the Torah, is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16-17). I just taught from Exodus 16 this past Sunday. I’m not sure what you mean by “foreshadowing.” If you mean prophecies and types (shadows) of His reign, then I completely agree. If you mean something else, you’d have to elaborate.

      The only *very* small nit I would pick is that many folks today come to Christ first….repent of their sins and accept him as their savior early in their belief. They were not raised in Judaism like the original people to whom Jesus preached. They lack the background of the “law and prophets” to lead them to the savior…..they intrinsically understand the sacrifice Jesus made for us by their conscience and the Holy Spirit. In light of that aspect, the Galatians 3:23-25 verses are slightly skewed in that often times newly converted “Christians” are in need of tutoring/guidance that the law and prophets help provide to further their spiritual development. After all, God wants to have an interpersonal, loving relationship with all of us and we are most effective at meeting that goal if we seek Him out and the best way I know of to accomplish that is to read all of His Word.

      This comes down to what’s necessary to be saved. You sound as though you’re adding quite a few necessities! I would say repentance and faith in Christ are the only necessities. The rest – such as the knowledge you listed – comes with time.

      One other thing; you mention the Sign of Jonah (Matt 12:40). On a few “Good Fridays” over the years I’ve done a decent amount of study on the concept. How do you account for the apparent discrepancy between the literal interpretation of the text and how many sects of Christianity choose to observe the Passion/Pesach/Feasts?

      May I ask you a favor? Would you consider watching the sermon I preached on Jonah? I hold that the Jonah account is literal, because that’s how it’s presented in the Old and New Testaments.

      Thanks again for an insightful article.

      Thank you as well, Sean, for the healthy dialogue and good attitude you’ve maintained. God bless!

  13. Shalom Scott, reading above teaching, Messiah types in old covenant brings this question, is the ‘panim’ or bread of presence, bread in temple , is that seen as a type of Messiah, how so, and if so then are we in line to wonder if all activities related to the bread are like a ‘treasure’ map? Mike

    1. Hi Mike,
      Good question. The manna was bread from heaven, which serves as a type of Christ, the true and greater bread from heaven. We have Jesus’ own testimony that it looked forward to Him (John 6:32-33). We don’t have the same confirmation in the New Testament regarding the showbread; however, that’s not to say that it’s not also a type and shadow.

      The showbread was meant to provide for the priests, or give them life, but they ate it and still died. Jesus said, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger” (John 6:35a).

      When the priests ate the bread it pictured their fellowship and communion with God. We have true and greater fellowship with God through His Son: “No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6b). Communion takes place when we consume, not the showbread, but the body of Christ (Matt 26:26).

      The showbread rested on the Table of the Presence, representing God’s presence with His people. Through Jesus was the presence of God truly manifested when He became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). He, versus the showbread, is Immanuel (God with us).

      What are your thoughts? Do you see any other ways the showbread looked forward to Jesus?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to Scott's Podcast
Subscribe to Scott's Newsletter

… and receive a free ebook. 
You can unsubscribe anytime.

Newsletter subscription for Scott LaPierre with Seven Biblical Insights