This is my blood - really?

[marco]

Let's imagine the scenario where Jim Wilson of modern times talks to a few friends in the backroom of a tavern and announces that the wine he's drinking is his blood. He's a pious and studious man.


What would be our conclusion?


Should our conclusion be any different when the words are attributed to a pious person who lived 2000 years ago in an area noted then as now for its political unrest?

[marco]

Let's imagine the scenario where Jim Wilson of modern times talks to a few friends in the backroom of a tavern and announces that the wine he's drinking is his blood. He's a pious and studious man.


What would be our conclusion?


Should our conclusion be any different when the words are attributed to a pious person who lived 2000 years ago in an area noted then as now for its political unrest?

I mention the political situation because one might think a good and interested person would try to bring a solution to problems that might, a few years later, end in bloodshed. But he seems to have been little interested in this and chose, instead, to play with metaphors, thus confusing many who took him seriously.

[polonius]

When the Torah tells us that we are allowed to eat the meat of kosher animals, we are warned that "…you shall not eat the blood…."

Although human blood is not included in this Biblical prohibition, it is nevertheless forbidden. This is because human blood resembles animal blood; one who observes people eating human blood might believe it is permitted to consume animal blood

[marco]

When the Torah tells us that we are allowed to eat the meat of kosher animals, we are warned that "…you shall not eat the blood…."

Although human blood is not included in this Biblical prohibition, it is nevertheless forbidden. This is because human blood resembles animal blood; one who observes people eating human blood might believe it is permitted to consume animal blood

Black pudding is made from blood and it's quite delicious. I assume you are speaking with your tongue in your cheek, Polonius. "IF ONE SEES SOMEONE DRINKING HUMAN BLOOD" do we worry that it might actually be animal blood? Hmmm.


Anyway, the issue I was raising was the meaning of "this is my blood." It seems a rather tasteless metaphor if indeed it is metaphorical. I wasn't thinking vampire.

[1213]

Let's imagine the scenario where Jim Wilson of modern times talks to a few friends in the backroom of a tavern and announces that the wine he's drinking is his blood. He's a pious and studious man....

It is interesting, people think Jesus talked that the wine is really blood, but what if he meant that the wine is not really blood, but like substitute for it. I mean, in old covenant, it was done by blood, sealed with blood, but in this new covenant the blood is replaced with the wine, the wine is the seal. I think Jesus didn’t mean the wine is blood in that sense that it is blood. The blood was like a seal and I think in the covenant that was made through Jesus, the wine was the seal. Wine is the blood of that covenant.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

Let's imagine the scenario where Jim Wilson of modern times talks to a few friends in the backroom of a tavern and announces that the wine he's drinking is his blood. He's a pious and studious man.


What would be our conclusion?


Should our conclusion be any different when the words are attributed to a pious person who lived 2000 years ago in an area noted then as now for its political unrest?

I’m not sure who Jim Wilson is, but those who were following Jesus were with Him at this point because of all that they had already seen Him do and say. I think they were pretty impressed with Him up to this point. He had proven Himself pretty amazing and capable of miracles. So, like I said, not sure who Jim Wilson is, but sounds like I would see him as a fairly ordinary man who did not claim to be the Son of God so if this Jim guy said the wine he’s drinking is his blood, I would probably not believe him if it still looked like wine to me. I would certainly want to know why I should believe him and why he thinks it good to drink his blood.

I mention the political situation because one might think a good and interested person would try to bring a solution to problems that might, a few years later, end in bloodshed. But he seems to have been little interested in this and chose, instead, to play with metaphors, thus confusing many who took him seriously.

On the contrary, I would suggest many of Jesus’ talks/speeches used beautiful and effective metaphors, parables, cleverness, imagery, etc.

When the Torah tells us that we are allowed to eat the meat of kosher animals, we are warned that "…you shall not eat the blood…."

Why were they told not to eat the blood?

This is why:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life�.

A pretty powerful Scripture passage explaining the life of something is in its blood.

All the more reason Jesus would now be telling us to drink His Blood. He is the life. Makes sense to me. In fact, it is amazing to me when people do not see the significance of the parallels, pre-figurement, and foreshadowing of Christ being the NEW sacrificial lamb. The sacrificial lamb always had to be unblemished and consumed, but here we now have Jesus telling His followers He was the New Covenant.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 1213]

It is interesting, people think Jesus talked that the wine is really blood, but what if he meant that the wine is not really blood, but like substitute for it. I mean, in old covenant, it was done by blood, sealed with blood, but in this new covenant the blood is replaced with the wine, the wine is the seal. I think Jesus didn’t mean the wine is blood in that sense that it is blood. The blood was like a seal and I think in the covenant that was made through Jesus, the wine was the seal. Wine is the blood of that covenant.

(bold mine)
Wine? That would seem a little trivial for a covenant. I’m pretty sure Jesus meant He is the blood of the covenant and to make it all the more real and binding His Blood is the New Covenant. Everything up until that point was prefiguring this new relationship with God’s people that was being established. Until Christ, God’s people had to offer the unblemished sacrificial lamb. But after Christ died for us, He became the new unblemished sacrificial lamb. He offers Himself perpetually to the Father for mankind. It isn’t about wine! It’s about our Savior Jesus Christ!

[tigger2]

It is certainly no secret that the Greek verb "is" (estin and its related forms) may be translated as "means," "represents," etc. This understanding is clearly shown in NT Greek lexicons. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, for instance, plainly states this on p. 176. (Also see W. E. Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 722.)

Actually, to see the truth of this, we only need to examine the following translations of "is": Matt. 9:13 RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, KJV, NEB, REB, NAB, AT, JB, NJB, etc.; Matt. 12:7; Matt. 13:38; Mark 9:10; Luke 8:9; and Eph. 4:9 RSV, NASB, NIV, NEB, NAB, JB. (Also see John 17:3 GNB, AT, and C. B. Williams, and see Rev. 19:8 NIV, AT.)

Even the NIV has translated "is" as "leads to" at John 12:50 - "his command leads to [estin] eternal life." (To be consistent NIV should have done this at Jn 17:3 also.) - Cf. LB, CBW, and AT.

And the acclaimed Bible scholar and translator, Dr. James Moffatt, even rendered 1 Cor. 11:24-25 as: "This means my body …. This cup means the new covenant" - The Bible - A New Translation, Harper and Row, 1954.

And the footnote for 1 Cor. 11:24 in the NIV Study Bible says: "The broken bread is a symbol of Christ's body given for sinners." In other words, "this bread means (or symbolizes) my body," and the f.n. for Luke 22:19 actually says for "is" in that verse: "is. represents or signifies." - Zondervan, 1985.

[RightReason]

[Replying to tigger2]

It is certainly no secret that the Greek verb "is" (estin and its related forms) may be translated as "means," "represents," etc. This understanding is clearly shown in NT Greek lexicons. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, for instance, plainly states this on p. 176. (Also see W. E. Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 722.)

Actually, to see the truth of this, we only need to examine the following translations of "is": Matt. 9:13 RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, KJV, NEB, REB, NAB, AT, JB, NJB, etc.; Matt. 12:7; Matt. 13:38; Mark 9:10; Luke 8:9; and Eph. 4:9 RSV, NASB, NIV, NEB, NAB, JB. (Also see John 17:3 GNB, AT, and C. B. Williams, and see Rev. 19:8 NIV, AT.)

Yes, same words can have different meanings which is why verses should never be read in isolation. A reading of the Bible as a whole is necessary. Everything must be considered. We can even do cross referencing with the meaning of words based on culture, language, speaker, audience, etc . . .

And the acclaimed Bible scholar and translator, Dr. James Moffatt, even rendered 1 Cor. 11:24-25 as: "This means my body …. This cupmeans the new covenant" - The Bible - A New Translation, Harper and Row, 1954.

James Moffatt was doing Bible translating around the 1920’s – I’d say he was a little late to the scene.
If is in “This is my body� was intended to be translated represents or means then it would literally render other Scriptural passages meaningless. Again, these phrases would be meaningless . . .
“This is a hard saying�
“Who can accept it?�
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?�
“Truly, truly I say to you . . .�
“My body is real food�
“My blood is real drink�
“For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves�

What also wouldn’t make sense is that the first Christians all proceeded to understand Christ’s words as being literal. Historical records show early Church writings all emphasizing the Real Presence. Even the original Protestant ministers believed and taught the Real Presence until that teaching, like many other teachings of Christ, began to be ignored and reduced to mere sentiment.

[marco]

And the acclaimed Bible scholar and translator, Dr. James Moffatt, even rendered 1 Cor. 11:24-25 as: "This means my body …

And this is explanatory? Bible scholars are human beings but according the man some credit we can still ask what on earth is being said here. It is no wonder the RC Church takes the meaning to be what it says. If one accepts that Jesus made water into wine there's no great imaginative leap to suppose he made wine into his blood.

And the footnote for 1 Cor. 11:24 in the NIV Study Bible says: "The broken bread is a symbol of Christ's body given for sinners." In other words, "this bread means (or symbolizes) my body," and the f.n. for Luke 22:19 actually says for "is" in that verse: "is. represents or signifies." - Zondervan, 1985.

This is very funny, as if Jesus speaks in footnotes. Obviously somebody has hit on a private interpretation and wants to make sure the damage is done properly. It would be good to have such footnotes to the Decalogue, where God points out the devil is in the detail.