Throughout history, the relationship between faith and tradition has sparked profound debates among believers. While some hold fast to established doctrines handed down through centuries, others prioritize Scripture as the ultimate authority. This tension raises critical questions about how we interpret sacred texts, reconcile seemingly conflicting teachings, and navigate the boundaries between divine command and human tradition. These discussions are not merely academic but touch on the essence of worship, the nature of faith, and our relationship with the divine. How do we ensure that our practices align with the timeless truths revealed in God's Word?
Does the Bible Really Support Drinking the Blood of Christ?
The Catholic Catechism teaches that believers must literally consume the body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist. This doctrine, known as transubstantiation, claims that bread and wine are transformed into Christ’s physical body and blood. But does this teaching align with the Bible, or does it contradict God’s clear commands? A closer look reveals a significant tension between this practice and the consistent biblical prohibition against consuming blood, along with a misunderstanding of Jesus’ words in John 6.
From the very beginning, Scripture emphasizes the sanctity of blood. In Genesis 9:4, God commanded Noah and his descendants, “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” This command is foundational, given long before the Mosaic Law, and applies to all humanity. It underscores the principle that blood is sacred, representing life, and is not to be consumed.
Later, in the Mosaic Law, this prohibition is reinforced with even greater clarity. Leviticus 17:10 declares, “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.”
Blood was reserved for atonement, to be offered to God on the altar, not consumed by people. This is reiterated as a “perpetual statute” in Leviticus 3:17, showing that the prohibition was not limited to a specific time or group.
Even in the New Testament, the prohibition remains intact. At the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles specifically instructed Gentile believers to abstain from consuming blood.
Acts 15:20 states, “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”
This command demonstrates that the early Church, under apostolic guidance, continued to uphold the sanctity of blood as a universal principle.
Given these clear prohibitions, how are we to understand Jesus’ words in John 6:53-56, where He says, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”? The Catholic Catechism takes this passage literally, claiming that Jesus commanded believers to drink His physical blood. However, a careful reading of the passage in its full context reveals that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally.
Jesus Himself provides the key to understanding His words in John 6:63: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Here, Jesus explains that His teaching about eating His flesh and drinking His blood was a spiritual metaphor, not a literal command. Physical flesh and blood do not provide eternal life; only the Spirit does. To take His words literally is to miss the spiritual truth He was conveying.
Moreover, if Jesus were commanding the literal drinking of His blood, He would be contradicting the very law He came to fulfill. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” God’s law, repeatedly and unequivocally, forbids the consumption of blood. Jesus, as the sinless Savior, would not command His followers to violate this eternal law.
The practice of transubstantiation also misunderstands the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper. At the Last Supper, Jesus said, “This is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:24). When He held the cup, He said, “This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me”
(1 Corinthians 11:25). These statements clearly indicate that the bread and wine were symbols, given to help believers remember Christ’s sacrifice, not literal flesh and blood to be consumed.
The doctrine of transubstantiation reflects a larger issue: reliance on tradition over Scripture. The Catholic Catechism’s teaching on the Eucharist was developed centuries after the New Testament was written, influenced by philosophical ideas rather than biblical truth. This approach contradicts Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 4:6 to “not go beyond what is written.” It also violates Jesus’ rebuke in Matthew 15:9: “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
Finally, we must consider the theological implications of this teaching. Hebrews 10:10-12 makes it clear that Christ’s sacrifice was offered “once for all.” His blood was shed on the cross, not meant to be consumed repeatedly. To claim that His blood must be continually re-presented in the Eucharist diminishes the sufficiency and finality of His sacrifice.
In conclusion, the Catholic teaching on drinking the blood of Christ directly contradicts God’s commands in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus’ words in John 6 are spiritual, not literal, as He explicitly states in verse 63. The practice of transubstantiation not only violates the Bible’s clear prohibition against consuming blood but also elevates human tradition above the Word of God. As believers, our faith must be rooted in Scripture, not in doctrines that distort its meaning. Let us honor Christ’s sacrifice by adhering to His Word and rejecting traditions that go beyond what is written.
Comments