In some future articles, it is intended to address the meaning of the new covenant in Christ’s blood (Mark 14:24), but before pondering the new covenant, it requires first that we consider Christ’s blood. This article makes use of Jesus’ discourse concerning his body and blood as given to the Jews of his day and as recorded in John Chapter 6.
The article parallels Wisdom’s invitation that her prepared meal be eaten (Prov 9:1-5) with Christ’s invitation that as the ‘Bread of Life’ his flesh be eaten and his blood drunk (John 6.35-58), and equates participation in Christ’s flesh and blood with living life in conformity to God’s Wisdom.
Its applications include:
Before we contemplate Christ’s disclosure of the New Covenant in his blood as spoken to the disciples at the Last Supper: “This is my blood of the New Covenant” (Mark 14:24), we first need to consider the nature of Christ’s blood and thereafter the nature of the new covenant. Jesus first spoke of his blood as part of a discourse given to the Jews of his day when they sought to make him king. In John 6 we find Christ seeking to discourage those that would make him king by requiring of them that they eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:48-56).
Most people, use the Synoptic Gospels’ accounts of the Last Supper meal as the window through which to interpret John 6. Given that Christ’s discourse with the Jews happened at Capernaum, this incident precedes the Last Supper by almost two years. Furthermore, John’s Gospel appeared a good while after the Synoptic gospels had been widely read, and the church’s practice of ‘communion’ well established. Given that John fails to include any bread and wine details in his record of the Last Supper, it is possible that John is inviting his readers to use the content of Christ’s discourse to the Jews in Capernaum as the interpretive medium through which the Last Supper should be viewed and not the other way around, as has become common practice today.
That being so, we need to look back into both the Old Testament and earlier clues from John’s gospel to discern what John is saying in this chapter.
John’s Gospel itself cautions us not to treat Christ’s instructions to ‘eat and drink’ as literal. Jesus says “the words I speak to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63), for he was speaking by way of spiritual metaphor. Despite this, we endeavour to repeat the literalism of Christ’s original audience when we equate our eating of the communion elements as the fulfilment of Jesus’ words. Even though our language includes many common ‘eating’ metaphors such as to; “devour a book”, “drink in scenery”, “swallow a lie” “eat our own words” or “chew over a matter”, when we come to these words of Jesus we feel compelled to clothe them in raiment of literalism.
How then are we to understand this metaphor of eating Christ’s flesh? The Book of Proverbs assists us and John himself provides guidance.
First let us recall that Proverbs depicts Wisdom in personified terms (Prov 8). The apostle Paul’s assessment that Jesus “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor 1:30) is readily accepted, but does scripture tell us when or how it is that Wisdom became incarnate? We could perhaps argue that since “whoever finds me [wisdom] finds life” (Prov 8:35) and “He that has the Son has life” (1 John 5:12), wisdom and the Son of God are one and the same, therefore Wisdom has become incarnate in Christ. This would be a sound argument by inference. However Proverbs provides us with greater insight, an insight which leads into Christ’s ‘eating’ metaphor:
“Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn her seven pillars. She has slaughtered her beasts; she has mixed her wine; she has also set her table. . . . “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” To him who lacks sense she says, “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed.” (Prov 9:1&2 - 3&4, ESV)
Of these verses St Augustine (350-430) comments:
“Wisdom said to the unwise, “Come, eat my bread and drink the wine which I have mingled for you.” In other words, surely, we recognize that the wisdom of God, the Father’s coeternal Word, has built a house for himself, namely, a body in the virgin’s womb. . . . and has set his table with bread and wine in allusion to the priesthood according to Melchizedek, and called the weak and unwise.” [1]
St Augustine encourages us to read Wisdom as having taken Jesus’ flesh as her abode and moreover, having thus taken up an earthly presence, Wisdom Incarnate then invites the unwise to eat of her food and drink of her wine.
St Augustine’s reference to the bread and wine of Melchizedek is instructive. Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham upon his return from defeating four kings. His provision of bread and wine was to refresh Abraham and those with him (Gen 14:17-18), since the battle had been arduous and the sack by the defeated kings most probably would have stripped the land of all sustenance. Similarly, we find that the Bread of The Presence from the temple was given to David and his weary troop as a life sustaining provision (1 Sam 21:6).
Thus, from scripture as well as from the tradition of the ancients[2] we find that bread meant life. To eat of Christ’s flesh is to participate in His life.
Second John tells us that Jesus is The Word made flesh (John 1:14). Therefore, from John’s perspective, to eat Christ’s flesh is to consume the Scriptures for in them is life.
First Scripture is redolent with the notion of blood as a means of atonement and it is conspicuous in that it portrays Christ’s blood as the only source of eternal atonement for the sin of mankind. It seems unexceptional therefore that Jesus should speak of the centrality of his blood to eternal life. What is a little less easy to grasp, even metaphorically, is why Jesus would urge that we should drink his blood!
When seeking to deliver Israel from the tyranny of Pharaoh’s Egypt, one of God’s judgments upon that nation was to turn the Nile’s waters into blood (Ex 7:20-21). So, we might infer that the drinking of blood is a metaphor for participation in judgment, such as the judgment which Christ bore on our behalf. Or, since the soul life of a creature is in its blood (Gen 9:4, Lev 17:11, Deut 12:23) perhaps we are being asked to participate in the life of Christ? Either image is consistent with Gospel revelation. But to drink blood, let alone human blood, is contrary to so much in Scripture that we might hope for a better explanation and in a way Jesus’ own words provide for it:
“Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35)
Bread is for hunger, liquid is for thirst. D A Carson explains:
“The image of ‘thirst’ is added to ‘hunger’ thereby anticipating vv 53ff. . . . Jesus is the bread of life, but it is the person who comes to him who does not hunger, not the person who eats him; similarly, it is the person who believes in him who does not thirst, not the person who drinks him.” [3]
Carson argues that by adding the notion “shall never thirst” to the message of being hungry for the Bread of Life in John 6:35, John anticipates the mention of drinking of Christ’s blood in verse 53. In this way John equates eating Christ’s flesh with coming to him, and believing on Christ with drinking his blood.
Second Not only Scripture but many cultures throughout the earth have held to a belief that blood means life. Furthermore, pagan traditions where there is no prohibition on participating in human blood, have honoured this belief to the extent of consuming the blood of another or exchanging blood with another in order to appropriate the power of that person.
Having outlined the blood covenant and blood eating practices across numerous cultures in all parts of the world, Henry Clay Trumbull (1830-1903) concludes:
“The belief seems to have been universal, not only that the blood is the life of the organism in which it originally flows, but that in its transfer from one organism to another the blood retains its life, and so carries with it vivifying power.” [4]
“It was a primeval idea, of universal sway, the taking in of another's blood was the acquiring of another's life with all that was best in that others nature. It was not merely that the taking away of blood was the taking away of life, but that the taking in of blood was the taking in of life and of all that that life represented.” [5]
To recap, both bread and blood are metaphor for life and in John 6, by pertaining to Jesus Christ, they are metaphors for eternal life. To eat Christ’s flesh is to come to him. To drink Christ’s blood is to believe on him. Further, while bread and blood both speak of eternal life, there is a secondary motif to each. Bread speaks of eternal life in tandem with the wisdom of God. Blood speaks of eternal life in tandem with atonement.
Lastly, by drawing on non-Biblical beliefs, which I hope to demonstrate from Scripture when discussing the New Covenant, to believe on (drink) the blood of Christ is to appropriate atonement (the letting out of blood) and to assume the nature of Christ (the taking in of blood).
How then might this understanding of bread and blood be applied to our lives?
FIRST - Given that the apostle John’s sees participation in the flesh and blood of Christ in an entirely non-literal sense, our ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ of Christ are in terms of ‘coming to’ and ‘believing on’ him. This is to construe eating and drinking in relational terms and not in sacramental terms. Sacramental thinking depicts communion as an event, something that we do, hence we “take” communion. Relational thinking grasps eating and drinking as “participation”, a participation in and union with Christ’s life. Thus, we do not “take” communion in order to acquire eternal life (John 6:54), rather we “live-in” communion because of who Christ is.
This is not to say that the eucharistic or communion sacrament is a flawed act of remembrance. As Prosper of Aquitaine (390-450 AD) wrote: "Lex Orandi, Lex Credento". 'As we pray, so we believe.' It is useful therefore, and not in any way hypocritical, to receive the communion elements, regardless of how we feel, because it shapes how we see Christ, which in turn shapes how we live and relate to him.
SECOND - There are 11 occasions in John 6 where the word used for eat is phago, which means to eat or to fully devour. But there is one occasion where a different word, trogo, is used:
“Whoever eats (trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day” - (John 6:54).
This word, trogo, emphasizes the act of eating as distinct from the idea of eating having been fulfilled. It means to gnaw, chew or crunch especially of animals. In the same way that cows ruminate or sheep chew the cud, to eat (trogo) of Christ’s flesh is to chew thoughtfully on his Word, to bring it to mind, to contemplate it. To maintain the metaphor, it is to come to the Word, ponder it and then to keep coming back to it. Thus it is not one who eats (sacramentally?) who gains eternal life but the one who chews (relationally).
All of this is to say that eating of God’s Wisdom is a whole of life matter. Wisdom, when stored in our hearts as the chewed/contemplated and regurgitated Word of God will come to mind at the required moment to aid us in all of life’s circumstances and decisions.
THIRD - If, as has been argued, Christ’s blood speaks of both life and atonement, we need to ponder the goals of our life with Christ’s blood in mind. For most people, indeed within most worldviews, the primary purpose of life is to be happy, however that word may be defined. Choices are made in terms of the happy/sad dichotomy. Will I be happy if I do this? How much shame, discomfort, suffering will I go through if I choose that? In the Christian worldview the principle dichotomy is the right/wrong dichotomy or the good/bad dichotomy. The happy/sad dichotomy is secondary.
The life of the Christian is shaped by the recognition that Christ’s blood atoned for our sins. Our life force and priority then become the desire to live out our days in thankfulness for that sacrifice. Decision making according to the happy/sad dichotomy is subordinated to that of the right/wrong or good/bad dichotomy.
[1] J R Wright (ed), ''Ancient Christian Commentary in Scripture - Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon'', Vol IX, IVP, Downers Grove IL, USA, 2005, pg 73
[2] R J Rushdoony, ''Commentaries on The Pentateuch - Exodus'', Ross House Books, Vallecito CA, 2004, pg 371
[3] D A Carson, ''The gospel according to John'', Apollos, Leicester, UK, 1991, pg 288
[4] H C Trumbull, ''The Blood Covenant'', Impact Christian Books, Kirkwood MO, USA, 1975 (1885), pg 110
[5] ibid pg 126
