Drinking the Blood

[Sam Jer]

Under the Mosaic Covenant it was forbidden to drink any blood. A sacrificer could not drink the offering's blood, nor a Levite, nor a Priest, nor the High Priest himself. The blood was sprinkled on the altar, and on people, and applied to their ears, thumbs and toes, but never did anyone drink it.

And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
(Le. 1:5)

And he brought the other ram, the ram of consecration: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram.
And he slew it; and Moses took of the blood of it, and put it upon the tip of Aaron's right ear, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot.
And he brought Aaron's sons, and Moses put of the blood upon the tip of their right ear, and upon the thumbs of their right hands, and upon the great toes of their right feet: and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round about.
(Le. 8:22-24)

Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:
As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:
And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.
And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean: and after that he shall come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his tent seven days.
(Le. 14:4-8)

In fact, it was not just the Mosaic economy, but even since Noah.

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
(Ge. 9:4)

The reasons God gives for this are:
1. The life is in the blood in some sense
2 God gave the blood for attonement

And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean.
But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity.
(Le. 17:10-16)

But in the New Testament, before offering himself once and for all, it seems that Christ flips all this on it's head:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
(Mat. 26:26-29)

This must have some sort of significance. But while I have a general idea of what that may be, I can't really articulate it. I am not completely sure how to conclude this.


So what do you say? What is the significance of Christ saying, after millennia that blood was absolutely prohibited for consumption, "Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood"?

 

[Northern Crofter]

Under the Mosaic Covenant it was forbidden to drink any blood. A sacrificer could not drink the offering's blood, nor a Levite, nor a Priest, nor the High Priest himself. The blood was sprinkled on the altar, and on people, and applied to their ears, thumbs and toes, but never did anyone drink it.

In fact, it was not just the Mosaic economy, but even since Noah.

The reasons God gives for this are:
1. The life is in the blood in some sense
2 God gave the blood for attonement

But in the New Testament, before offering himself once and for all, it seems that Christ flips all this on it's head:

This must have some sort of significance. But while I have a general idea of what that may be, I can't really articulate it. I am not completely sure how to conclude this.

So what do you say? What is the significance of Christ saying, after millennia that blood was absolutely prohibited for consumption, "Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood"?

Two thoughts (though I'm not sure either answers your question directly):

(1) He tells them to drink the cup, not His blood. The cup is the symbol, not what's in it. The physical cup represents the spiritual blood just as the physical bread represent the spiritual body. And so Calvin writes: "Luke and Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) express it differently, the new testament in my blood, but the meaning is the same; for it is only by a spiritual drinking of blood that this covenant is ratified, so as to be firm and stable. Yet it may easily be inferred from it, how foolishly superstitious the Papists and others of the same stamp are in rigidly adhering to the words; for, with all their bluster, they cannot set aside this exposition of the Holy Spirit, that the cup is called blood, because it is the new testament in blood. But the same argument applies to the bread; from which it will follow that it is called the body; because it is the testament in the body They have no right now to contend that we ought to rely on the simple words of Christ, and shut our ears against expositions from without. It is Christ himself that speaks, and surely they will not deny that he is well qualified to interpret his own words. Now Christ openly declares that he called the bread his body, for no other reason than because he has made with us an everlasting covenant, that, the sacrifice having been once offered, we may now be spiritually fed." (emphasis added)

(2) Luke's account adds an interesting detail - Christ twice took the cup [my interpretation of the pronouns are added in brackets]:

Matthew 26.26-29	Mark 14.22-26	Luke 22.15-20
And as they did eat, Jesus took the bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. Also he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it [the cup] them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this [cup] is my blood of the new Testament that is shed for many, for the remission of sins. I say unto you that I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day, when I shall drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.	And as they did eat, Jesus took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it and gave it to them, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. Also he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, gave it [the cup] to them: and they all drank of it [the cup]. And he said unto them, This [cup] is my blood of that new Testament which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day, that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.	Then he said unto them, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you, before I suffer. For I say unto you, Henceforth I will not eat of it [the Passover] anymore, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup [of the Passover], and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among you: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God be come. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you: do this in the remembrance of me. Likewise also after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is that new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

It seems as though in Luke's narrative the first time "He took the cup, and gave thanks" (v.17) he was observing the holy feast of the Passover before instituting the new holy feast of the Lord's Supper (vv.19-20), seamlessly transitioning from one to another, thus the reference in all 3 Gospels to "the new testament." Again, Calvin seems to have this same sense: "As Luke mentions that the cup was twice presented by Christ, we must inquire, in the first place, if it be a repetition, (as the Evangelists are wont frequently to say the same thing twice,) or if Christ, after having tasted the cup, repeated the same thing a second time. This latter conjecture appears to me to be probable; for we know that the holy fathers, during sacrifices, observed the solemn rite of tasting the cup.... I have no doubt, therefore, that Christ, according to the ancient custom, tasted the cup in the holy feast, which otherwise could not have been correctly observed; and Luke expressly mentions this, before coming to give an account of the new mystery, which was a totally different institution from the paschal lamb. It was in compliance also with received and ordinary custom, that he is expressly said to have given thanks, after having taken the cup. For at the commencement of the supper, I have no doubt, he prayed, as he was accustomed never to sit down at table without calling on God; but now he wished to discharge once more the same duty, that he might not leave out a ceremony which, I have just now shown, was connected with the sacred act of taking the cup and tasting it."

The question I still have is whether the reference in all 3 accounts to not drinking of the/this fruit of the vine is referring to the cup of Passover in each passage (because of where the statement is located relative tot he institution of the Lord's Supper) - I think it is based on Luke's account, and I think Christ, who is our Passover sacrificed for us (I Cor.5.7), is referring to "the Lamb’s supper" (Rev.19.9) when He speaks of drinking the cup new in His Father's kingdom.

 

[Sam Jer]

Two thoughts (though I'm not sure either answers your question directly):

(1) He tells them to drink the cup, not His blood. The cup is the symbol, not what's in it. The physical cup represents the spiritual blood just as the physical bread represent the spiritual body. And so Calvin writes: "Luke and Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) express it differently, the new testament in my blood, but the meaning is the same; for it is only by a spiritual drinking of blood that this covenant is ratified, so as to be firm and stable. Yet it may easily be inferred from it, how foolishly superstitious the Papists and others of the same stamp are in rigidly adhering to the words; for, with all their bluster, they cannot set aside this exposition of the Holy Spirit, that the cup is called blood, because it is the new testament in blood. But the same argument applies to the bread; from which it will follow that it is called the body; because it is the testament in the body They have no right now to contend that we ought to rely on the simple words of Christ, and shut our ears against expositions from without. It is Christ himself that speaks, and surely they will not deny that he is well qualified to interpret his own words. Now Christ openly declares that he called the bread his body, for no other reason than because he has made with us an everlasting covenant, that, the sacrifice having been once offered, we may now be spiritually fed." (emphasis added)

(2) Luke's account adds an interesting detail - Christ twice took the cup [my interpretation of the pronouns are added in brackets]:

Matthew 26.26-29	Mark 14.22-26	Luke 22.15-20
And as they did eat, Jesus took the bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. Also he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it [the cup] them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this [cup] is my blood of the new Testament that is shed for many, for the remission of sins. I say unto you that I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day, when I shall drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.	And as they did eat, Jesus took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it and gave it to them, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. Also he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, gave it [the cup] to them: and they all drank of it [the cup]. And he said unto them, This [cup] is my blood of that new Testament which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day, that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.	Then he said unto them, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you, before I suffer. For I say unto you, Henceforth I will not eat of it [the Passover] anymore, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup [of the Passover], and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among you: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God be come. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you: do this in the remembrance of me. Likewise also after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is that new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

It seems as though in Luke's narrative the first time "He took the cup, and gave thanks" (v.17) he was observing the holy feast of the Passover before instituting the new holy feast of the Lord's Supper (vv.19-20), seamlessly transitioning from one to another, thus the reference in all 3 Gospels to "the new testament." Again, Calvin seems to have this same sense: "As Luke mentions that the cup was twice presented by Christ, we must inquire, in the first place, if it be a repetition, (as the Evangelists are wont frequently to say the same thing twice,) or if Christ, after having tasted the cup, repeated the same thing a second time. This latter conjecture appears to me to be probable; for we know that the holy fathers, during sacrifices, observed the solemn rite of tasting the cup.... I have no doubt, therefore, that Christ, according to the ancient custom, tasted the cup in the holy feast, which otherwise could not have been correctly observed; and Luke expressly mentions this, before coming to give an account of the new mystery, which was a totally different institution from the paschal lamb. It was in compliance also with received and ordinary custom, that he is expressly said to have given thanks, after having taken the cup. For at the commencement of the supper, I have no doubt, he prayed, as he was accustomed never to sit down at table without calling on God; but now he wished to discharge once more the same duty, that he might not leave out a ceremony which, I have just now shown, was connected with the sacred act of taking the cup and tasting it."

The question I still have is whether the reference in all 3 accounts to not drinking of the/this fruit of the vine is referring to the cup of Passover in each passage (because of where the statement is located relative tot he institution of the Lord's Supper) - I think it is based on Luke's account, and I think Christ, who is our Passover sacrificed for us (I Cor.5.7), is referring to "the Lamb’s supper" (Rev.19.9) when He speaks of drinking the cup new in His Father's kingdom.

Is this cup of the passover mentioned anywhere else in scripture?

Second thought - he still refers to the cup as his blood, and tells the disciples to drink it, so I am not sure this distinction holds.

As to it being the new testament in Christ's blood, received spiritually rather than carnally, I agree (and if I didn't I wouldn't be on this board).

 

[Debtor_to_Mercy]

Very happy to see you raise this point because it has been in my thoughts for the past year or so and I have rarely heard anyone mention that reversal. Here is what I’m thinking.

1. When Christ tells his disciples that unless they drink his blood they have no life in them (John 6), it is meant to be a thunderbolt of a declaration. Imagine how this would sound to them, given the law’s frequent, strict, and unvarying prohibitions on drinking blood.

2. The prohibitions on drinking blood, “because the life is in the blood” are given because it would be wrong for a man to take part in the “life” of an animal. The animal sacrifices were placeholders, reminders that a life must be forfeited because God’s law was broken, but they were not the real sacrifice. They could never really take away sins. And so the identification of Hebrews with the sacrificed animals, and of the animals with the people they represented, was only partial.

3. When the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world lay down his life, now we are given full participation in the life of the sacrifice. No longer a partial, symbolic sacrifice, our Redeemer fully took on our guilt and gives us fully of himself and his life. The life is in the blood, blood he hands us and bids us drink.

 

[EvanF]

Very happy to see you raise this point because it has been in my thoughts for the past year or so and I have rarely heard anyone mention that reversal. Here is what I’m thinking.

1. When Christ tells his disciples that unless they drink his blood they have no life in them (John 6), it is meant to be a thunderbolt of a declaration. Imagine how this would sound to them, given the law’s frequent, strict, and unvarying prohibitions on drinking blood.

2. The prohibitions on drinking blood, “because the life is in the blood” are given because it would be wrong for a man to take part in the “life” of an animal. The animal sacrifices were placeholders, reminders that a life must be forfeited because God’s law was broken, but they were not the real sacrifice. They could never really take away sins. And so the identification of Hebrews with the sacrificed animals, and of the animals with the people they represented, was only partial.

3. When the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world lay down his life, now we are given full participation in the life of the sacrifice. No longer a partial, symbolic sacrifice, our Redeemer fully took on our guilt and gives us fully of himself and his life. The life is in the blood, blood he hands us and bids us drink.

Reading the prohibitions, I drew the same conclusion - that the blood of the animal, representing its life, belongs to the creator and all the more so after the Noahic covenant whereby he redeemed (bought back) an elect remnant of all life from their destruction to which the world was sold because of men's sin. The connection of blood with redeemed life is re-emphasized in the sacrifice of the Abrahamic covenant, where he redeems life from Abraham's barren stem and also excludes him from mortal jeopardy in the covenantal rite; and with the Passover in Egypt, where the blood of lambs marked the first-borns of Israel as redeemed from death; and finally with Christ's new covenant in his blood shed on the cross, whereby he fulfilled the redemption of an elect people prefigured in Abraham's covenant.

However only now do I recognize this additional significance of sharing "the blood" with his people in the last supper - that he has not only redeemed his elect remnant from destruction but also thereby restored again to Adam's race what was lost in the fall. Our lives are no more held over us by God because in his incarnation and sacrifice he redeemed them on our behalf from himself.

 

[Sam Jer]

Reading the prohibitions, I drew the same conclusion - that the blood of the animal, representing its life, belongs to the creator and all the more so after the Noahic covenant whereby he redeemed (bought back) an elect remnant of all life from their destruction to which the world was sold because of men's sin. The connection of blood with redeemed life is re-emphasized in the sacrifice of the Abrahamic covenant, where he redeems life from Abraham's barren stem and also excludes him from mortal jeopardy in the covenantal rite; and with the Passover in Egypt, where the blood of lambs marked the first-borns of Israel as redeemed from death; and finally with Christ's new covenant in his blood shed on the cross, whereby he fulfilled the redemption of an elect people prefigured in Abraham's covenant.

However only now do I recognize this additional significance of sharing "the blood" with his people in the last supper - that he has not only redeemed his elect remnant from destruction but also thereby restored again to Adam's race what was lost in the fall. Our lives are no more held over us by God because in his incarnation and sacrifice he redeemed them on our behalf from himself.

Thank you!
What do you mean by "Our lives are no more held over us by God"? Particularly "over us". Is it some expression I don't know or forgot, or does it reference something?


Also, which sacrifice of the Abrahamic covenant are you referring to? Genesis 15 is the one that comes to my mind, is that what you meant or did you mean a different one?

 

[EvanF]

Thank you!
What do you mean by "Our lives are no more held over us by God"? Particularly "over us". Is it some expression I don't know or forgot, or does it reference something?


Also, which sacrifice of the Abrahamic covenant are you referring to? Genesis 15 is the one that comes to my mind, is that what you meant or did you mean a different one?

Yes, Gen 15 was the one I had in mind.

I see the repeated prohibition of dinking blood as a reminder that all life, ours included, is ransomed by and belongs to God, and that while we live, that life may be demanded of us by the one who graciously spared us from destruction. In Christ's sacrifice in human flesh, human life was demanded and delivered. It is no more held over us, who are in Christ.

In other words, whereas God's sparing from destruction in the flood was a stay of sentencing, Christ's sacrifice was the sentence executed, and no sentence now hangs over our heads.

 

[Sam Jer]

In Christ's sacrifice in human flesh, human life was demanded and delivered. It is no more held over us, who are in Christ.

In other words, whereas God's sparing from destruction in the flood was a stay of sentencing, Christ's sacrifice was the sentence executed, and no sentence now hangs over our heads.

Amen!

I was thinking today about how the way God describes sinful Israel's suffering can easily be applied to Christ.

the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.
From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.
(Is. 1:5b-6)

We who are saved were no less sinful, it's just that someone else bore our grieves and carried our sorrows.