Yes, that is correct. The Jews believes that the “Life” was in the Blood.Our pastor gave a talk last night for parents of 2nd graders. The subject was 1st Eucharist. He said that the greek translation of “Body” from Mark 14:22 or Matt 26:26 is really “self”. He also mentioned that the people who heard “blood” as in Mark 14:24 or Matt 26:28 understood to it to be the word “life”.
I had never heard this explanation. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
This does not seem to be a clear statement. The word used in Greek in both Mark 14:22 and Matt 26:26 is “soma,” as in somatic disorder etc. It means “body.” The Latin word used in these passages is “corpus.”Our pastor gave a talk last night for parents of 2nd graders. The subject was 1st Eucharist. He said that the greek translation of “Body” from Mark 14:22 or Matt 26:26 is really “self”. He also mentioned that the people who heard “blood” as in Mark 14:24 or Matt 26:28 understood to it to be the word “life”.
I had never heard this explanation. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
It was also a talk to parents of second graders. It may have been better said, but one also needs to remember that second graders are more than a tad bit young, not only physically, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. It was undoubtedly given to help the parents catechize. and given the status of catechesis 10, 15 or 20 years ago, it might have been the best way to provide them with teaching material.This does not seem to be a clear statement. The word used in Greek in both Mark 14:22 and Matt 26:26 is “soma,” as in somatic disorder etc. It means “body.” The Latin word used in these passages is “corpus.”
So, whatever the pastor was intending, it was not a matter of “translating” the language.
Similarly, the word used for blood is “sanguis” in Latin and “aima” in Greek. Both of these mean blood.
It is true that the reason given for not drinking the blood of animals in the Old Testament was e.g. “For the life of all flesh is in the blood: therefore I said to the children of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any flesh at all, because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and whosoever eateth it, shall be cut off.” Leviticus 17:14 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.) This clearly associates blood with life. So, the connection between the ideas of life and blood are clear in the Scripture. However, it is real blood that is being discussed in Leviticus.
It is important to stay grounded in the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ, or one will be tempted (as many have) to overly “spiritualize” the meaning of the Sacrament, and loose its incarnational (in the flesh) meaning. Remember that Jesus was willing to allow many of His disciples to leave Him rather than to compromise or mitigate His teaching in John 6: “So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” John 6:53-56 (RSV)
Here again the words in Latin are “caro” (as in “carnivore”) and “sanguis,” and in Greek are “sarx” (as in “sarcophagus”) and “aima.”
I think this means that whatever the pastor’s point was, it was a gloss and elaboration, not a full statement of the meaning of the words or of the Sacrament. Only by keeping the basic truth of the reality of the Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament, can the more spiritual implications be kept in perspective.
Ad gloriam Dei.
John Hiner
Granted that people reason this way about seven-year-olds, there are two things that I do not understand about it.It was also a talk to parents of second graders. It may have been better said, but one also needs to remember that second graders are more than a tad bit young, not only physically, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. It was undoubtedly given to help the parents catechize. and given the status of catechesis 10, 15 or 20 years ago, it might have been the best way to provide them with teaching material.
It all goes back to eating the elephant - one bite at a time…
If so, then why would he need to get into the subject of Greek translations at all? That’s even above the heads of most parents of second graders, let alone the children themselves, don’t you think?It was also a talk to parents of second graders. It may have been better said, but one also needs to remember that second graders are more than a tad bit young, not only physically, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. It was undoubtedly given to help the parents catechize. and given the status of catechesis 10, 15 or 20 years ago, it might have been the best way to provide them with teaching material.
It all goes back to eating the elephant - one bite at a time…
We were given a very, very short synopsis of what was said at the meeting. I do not think from the quote that we can impute either that the quoted matter was all that was said, or that it consisted of the substance of what was said; only that these certain comments were made.First, it seems dangerous to risk a child who has reached the age of reason mistaking the nature of the Body and Blood:
Not necessarily. I treat adults as adults.If so, then why would he need to get into the subject of Greek translations at all? That’s even above the heads of most parents of second graders, let alone the children themselves, don’t you think?