The Last Supper is meant to picture not only the fulfillment of past promises of God and the present impending death of Jesus, but just as much the assured future of an even greater meal in the coming kingdom of God.
As compelling as this view is, I suggest that it over-states the Pauline and Protestant understanding of grace. Yes, Paul says we cannot be justified by our own works, and he contrasts justification by works with justification by faith in Christ (e.g., Gal. 2:16; Rom. 4:4–5). But he does, in fact, say in many places we are justified by our faith, and he never contrasts our faith with the work of Christ. Instead, Paul can say in the same breath that we are both "justified by [our] faith" (Rom. 5:1) and "justified by his blood" (Rom. 5:9).https://www.crossway.org/articles/faith-in-christ-vs-the-faithfulness-of-christ/
Grammatically, there are other places where the genitive refers to Christ as the object.
In Philippians 3:8, Jesus Christ is described as the object of knowledge. In 1 Thessalonians, he is described as the object of hope. In both these cases, it is clear from the context that Paul is not talking about Christ's knowledge or Christ's hope. There is no grammatical reason why the same can't be true of pistis christou.https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/faith-in-christ-or-faithfulness-of-christ/
Imputed righteousness means that we are declared to be in the right before God on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is given to us when we believe. Infused righteousness means that we are righteous before God because of our righteous behavior, because of the righteousness that transforms and changes us.Sola Fide, 26
we cannot expect the earliest Christians to have the same clarity on the issue of sola fide as the Reformers. The emphasis we find among them on topics like good works and merit lacks the clarity of the later discussions, but a sympathetic reading doesn't posit a contradiction between them and the Reformers. True faith results in good works, and the term "merit" in the early fathers may designate the reward given instead of being interpreted to say that one earns salvation.Sola Fide, 23
Justification is by faith alone, but it isn't a faith that is alone, for true faith produces good works. Still, good works are not the ground or cause of salvation; they are the fruit of one's faith. The perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers, so that their righteousness is not inherent but is theirs because they are united to Jesus Christ. At the final judgment God will declare publicly what was already the case in the lives of believers, i.e., that they are righteous by faith, and their works will verify (but will not be the foundation of) that declaration.
What we typically call the moral norms of the law are fulfilled, at least in some measure, in the lives of believers. Nevertheless, they are not normative merely because they appear in the Mosaic covenant, for that covenant has passed away. It seems that they are normative because they express the character of God. We know that they still express God's will for believers because they are repeated as moral norms in the New Testament. It is not surprising that in the welter of the laws we find in the Old Testament (613 according to the rabbis) that some of those laws express transcendent moral principles. Still, the mistake we make is trying to carve up neatly the law into moral and nonmoral categories. Many of the so-called "ceremonial" laws have a moral dimension that cannot be jettisoned. They are not applicable to believers today because we live in a completely different cultural situation.
The distinction between the moral, ceremonial, and civil law is appealing and attractive. Even though it has some elements of truth, it does not sufficiently capture Paul's stance toward the law. As stated earlier, Paul argues that the entirety of the law has been set aside now that Christ has come.