Drinking blood? A pretty new Covenant! | Christian Literature | United Kingdom



At the Final Supper, Jesus commands His disciples to consume of His flesh and drink His blood. Medical professional Ralph F. Wilson, Evangelical Christian, retired Pastor, Medical professional of Ministry and Director of Joyful Heart Renewal Ministries, comments as follows on Jesus’ confusing but uncompromising directive, “The metaphor was so vivid, so intense, in reality, that it brought on an uproar. Lots of “disciples” left and no longer followed Jesus.” Certainly, in John six:52, these about Him started to get rather upset and angered by their Rabbi’s outlandish and apparently cannibalistic turns of phrase:


Then the Jews started to argue with one particular one more, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to consume?“” John six:52


From that time on, several of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him.”(John six:66)


But Jesus does not clarify Himself! He requires no pains to elucidate to these men and women why it is that He is all of a sudden advocating a practice that is bound to outrage and disgust them. He knows complete properly that if  they think that He suggests they should really actually swallow His blood, they are probably to think He is a fraud, and can not possibly be the Messiah. It is a enormous threat. None the much less, Jesus remains adamant and becomes even far more uncompromising:


“53Jesus mentioned to them, “I inform you the truth, unless you consume the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the final day.”” (John six: 53-55)


A quantity of factors happen to me when I take into account the Final Supper and how confusing it have to have been for several. A single of them is, I am anticipated to be obedient and trusting, even when I can not possibly fully grasp what God is asking of me or why He could ask it.


In the finish, God did not enable Abraham to spill Isaac’s blood Jesus did not reduce Himself and fill a cup with his blood then need men and women to drink it.  Naturally, there is some thing profoundly spiritual going on, that our flesh can not perceive, and to which we are getting needed to consent, trustingly. 


In Acts 10, Peter has a vision in which God shows him a variety of unclean animals that would surely not yield kosher meat, however says: 


 “Get up, Peter. Kill and consume.” (Acts 10:13)


Peter, steadfast Jew as he is, is horrified. I visualize his abhorrence was on a par with that of these who had walked out on Jesus at the Final Supper. He retorts to God’s instruction:


Certainly not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have under no circumstances eaten something impure or unclean.” (Acts 10:14)


But, just as Jesus was uncompromising and did not really feel the will need to launch into a hermeneutical discourse on how He was updating an old covenant, and blood was central to it in some radically new way, God does not comfort Peter ,or place his thoughts at rest about consuming ‘unclean’ meat. Just as Jesus did when He urged the drinking of His blood, the Father repeats the injunction to Peter, to revise his views on what is clean:


The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not get in touch with something impure that God has created clean.” (Acts 10:15)


In reality, as far as we know, Peter  did not really have to consume a lizard to prove his fealty to a ‘new order’ . What he did have to do, that pretty day, was bring the Gospel to a Roman gentile named Cornelius, whose residence Peter would have been unwilling to enter prior to his vision, on grounds it, also, would have been ‘unclean’.


My restricted understanding is that there is a revolution taking location at the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection, that is exploding the prejudices and cultural limits of His selected men and women. I suspect it was important, in order that they could take the Gospels ‘to the ends of the earth’. The traditions and taboos that marked them as distinctly and elitely Jewish, had turn out to be ‘bars’ it appears, to evangelising gentiles. And Jesus had come to save humankind, not just the Jews. These contraindicative laws to globe evangelism incorporated circumcision, which Paul denounced as unnecessary for salvation, following the Resurrection:


“”But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was pretty incorrect. 12 When he very first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who had been not circumcised. But afterward, when some mates of James came, Peter wouldn’t consume with the Gentiles any longer. He was afraid of criticism from these men and women who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. “” (Galatians two:11-12)


This radical New Covenant is about obtaining the Jewish followers of Christ to go spiritually ‘viral’ it is as if God has been incubating His Gospel all through the Old Testament and when Jesus’ blood is shed, there is a spiritual ‘outbreak’ of such momentum, that it explodes all flesh boundaries. The Jewish laws and guidelines that kept the Jews ‘immune’ from other people – that had been observed prophylactically prior to the Resurrection, are now barriers to the spreading of the Gospel. Now, nothing at all and no one particular, is unclean nothing at all is necessarily kosher. Spiritual contamination is no longer a threat for the Jews who are saved by Jesus. Even circumcision is a spiritual affair! :


For a particular person is not a Jew who is one particular outwardly, and correct circumcision is not some thing visible in the flesh. 29 On the contrary, a particular person is a Jew who is one particular inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart—by the Spirit, not the letter.That man’s praise is not from guys but from God.” (Romans two:28-29)


So, at the Final Supper, when Jesus mentioned:


“”Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the final day.” “(John six:54


His words had been deliberately, unapologetically and precisely counter to God’s Old Testament law, established in Leviticus,  through Moses:


“”And if any native Israelite or foreigner living amongst you eats or drinks blood in any kind, I will turn against that particular person and reduce him off from the neighborhood of your men and women,“” ( Leviticus 17:10)


“”You have to under no circumstances consume or drink blood“”(Leviticus 17:12)


It is no wonder so several Jewish ‘disciples’ left Jesus that day. What He was saying was tantamount to heresy. They have to have believed the Pharisees had been suitable, immediately after all, to seek the demise of this strange Rabbi. I visualize a handful of of these who left Jesus in the course of the Final Supper, had been baying for His blood a handful of hours later.


As for me,  I have no higher understanding of the precise significance of blood, than Peter seemed to have at the Final Supper what is it in blood that can save the soul? But, like Peter, I know and trust that the God who sent His son to bleed for me possesses the only protected hands to which I can entrust my soul.


Just after He had pronounced that, without the need of consumption of His blood, no particular person could hope for salvation, and  several had left Him in disgust, Jesus addresses His remaining Disciples:


 “”So Jesus asked the Twelve, “Do you want to leave also?””( John six:67)


And to his credit, it is Peter who speaks for them, even though he have to have been as frightened as he was on the evening he stepped out of that boat to meet Jesus on the sea of Galilee:


“Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life.…“” (John six:68)


What he mentioned, Lord.















Latest posts