I don't understand something in Mark 14:23 about the consecration of the wine? Help me out!?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FishyPete
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FishyPete

Guest
Why does Mark mention that the 12 drank the wine before Jesus says the words “this is my blood”. I know its different in Mathew and Luke.

see here:

Mark 14:

**…23And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. **

Is it to be read that our Lord was speaking the words in verse 24 as he handed the cup over? or is it implied he said it during or afterwards.

Luke and Mathew are clear that he said it before, as is Paul clear I believe on this subject.

Why does Mark phrase it this way? Is there something to the Greek in the NT that can have the order of events inversed?

I was never clear on this, can someone help me out here?
 
My initial thoughts are that he couldn’t exactly “break up the cup” so Mark wanted to relate the fact that they all drank from the cup, as he had equally portioned out the bread?

Therefore he added the editorial “and they all drank from it”, before he relates what our Lord said before hand?

Does this make sense?

I’m kind of confused here…
 
You’re missing the actual consecration.

23And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many

The second sentence describes some of what He was saying during the blessing/thanks.

Just a different style of writing about the Last Supper.
 
zz912 said:
You’re missing the actual consecration.

23And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many

The second sentence describes some of what He was saying during the blessing/thanks.

Just a different style of writing about the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your response! 🙂 but isn’t the “this is my blood” the important part?

I’m assuming Mark relates the words of our Lord secondarily with reference to the cup, but intends to mean our Lord said them first? is that right?
 
Can anybody she’d some light on this. I read somewhere that Mark intended verse 24 to be read as if it preceded verse 23.

I don’t remember where I saw this. is this a correct assumption?
 
Hello Fishy Pete.

What are you fishing for? An “Oh my God!” Jesus didn’t get the consecration right
because when we do the Eucharistic Prayer now, the order is slightly different than what it says in the Gospel? Shouldn’t Jesus have done it the way the Church would say it two thousand years later? What’s up with that?

My answer: God got it right and so do our Priests all these years later. God is there after the Transubstantiation and yes, all the words the Priests are expected to say in order for this miracle to occur must be said in the order they are said and in the manner in which they are instructed to say them. And you are correct in noting that this Rite has evolved over the centuries into what we have today and that the Eucharistic Prayers do actually deviate from the wording in the Scriptures. Very good Pete. But guess what? God has been there each and every time and will be until the end of time, just like He said at the Last Supper. Does that help? Is your fishing expedition over yet?

Glenda
 
glendab said:
Hello Fishy Pete.

What are you fishing for? An “Oh my God!” Jesus didn’t get the consecration right
because when we do the Eucharistic Prayer now, the order is slightly different than what it says in the Gospel? Shouldn’t Jesus have done it the way the Church would say it two thousand years later? What’s up with that?

My answer: God got it right and so do our Priests all these years later. God is there after the Transubstantiation and yes, all the words the Priests are expected to say in order for this miracle to occur must be said in the order they are said and in the manner in which they are instructed to say them. And you are correct in noting that this Rite has evolved over the centuries into what we have today and that the Eucharistic Prayers do actually deviate from the wording in the Scriptures. Very good Pete. But guess what? God has been there each and every time and will be until the end of time, just like He said at the Last Supper. Does that help? Is your fishing expedition over yet?

Glenda
Click to expand...
Hey hey! I’m as orthodox a Catholic (if you can use those terms together) as they come.

I’m just trying to refute some terrible protestant stuff I read on biblehub.com, name this:

“Mark 14:24. καὶ εἶπεν: while they drank the cup (not after they had drunk it, De Wette: nor before they began to drink, as Mt.’s narrative by itself would suggest), Jesus explained to them the symbolic import of the cup. The important point in Mk.’s account of the words, as compared with Mt.’s, is the omission of the expression, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.”

and

Mark 14:23. Καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες, and they all drank of it) This clause interposed between the words of the Lord is an argument, that the words, This is My body, this is My blood, were said, during the time whilst they were eating, and whilst they were drinking. Whence the evangelists either prefix or else subjoin those words; comp. note, Matthew 3:7

They (NOT ME) wish to imply that our Lord let the 12 drink before he said it was his blood.

I’m only fishing for Bass in the summer.

I’m hurt!
 
FishyPete said:
Can anybody she’d some light on this. I read somewhere that Mark intended verse 24 to be read as if it preceded verse 23.

I don’t remember where I saw this. is this a correct assumption?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you’re supposed to change the order of the verses in your head as you read them, I think he’s just relating in verse 24 what Jesus actually said when He blessed the cup in verse 23. There’s a similar situation in Luke 1, where it tells us that Mary stayed with Elizabeth (who was 6 months pregnant) for 3 months, and then returned home. Only after that does it tell us how the birth happened. Some people conclude that Mary left right before the birth of St. John the Baptist, but the text doesn’t actually say that. It’s just not telling everything in exact chronological order. I think the Gospel of Mark is doing something similar. Does that make sense?
 
Hello Fishy Pete.
FishyPete said:
Hey hey! I’m as orthodox a Catholic (if you can use those terms together) as they come.

I’m just trying to refute some terrible protestant stuff I read on biblehub.com, name this:

“Mark 14:24. καὶ εἶπεν: while they drank the cup (not after they had drunk it, De Wette: nor before they began to drink, as Mt.’s narrative by itself would suggest), Jesus explained to them the symbolic import of the cup. The important point in Mk.’s account of the words, as compared with Mt.’s, is the omission of the expression, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.”

and

Mark 14:23. Καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες, and they all drank of it) This clause interposed between the words of the Lord is an argument, that the words, This is My body, this is My blood, were said, during the time whilst they were eating, and whilst they were drinking. Whence the evangelists either prefix or else subjoin those words; comp. note, Matthew 3:7

They (NOT ME) wish to imply that our Lord let the 12 drink before he said it was his blood.

I’m only fishing for Bass in the summer.

I’m hurt!
Click to expand...
Sorry! One thousand apologies. :blushing:

Glenda
 
I’m thinking you could try the angle that how could He even give His Body and Blood as the Eucharist when He hadn’t even died yet? Because He is God and can do anything He wants to.

Best guy to check out for this stuff I think is John Martignoni. I vaguely remember him taking something like this on. He’s probably got ya covered and then some.

biblechristiansociety.com/home.php

Good luck and God bless.

Glenda
 
dmar198 said:
I don’t think you’re supposed to change the order of the verses in your head as you read them, I think he’s just relating in verse 24 what Jesus actually said when He blessed the cup in verse 23. There’s a similar situation in Luke 1, where it tells us that Mary stayed with Elizabeth (who was 6 months pregnant) for 3 months, and then returned home. Only after that does it tell us how the birth happened. Some people conclude that Mary left right before the birth of St. John the Baptist, but the text doesn’t actually say that. It’s just not telling everything in exact chronological order. I think the Gospel of Mark is doing something similar. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
I makes sense. I read the same thing somewhere, i’m just trying to refute some of the stuff I read.
 
Thanks to all who have provided (name removed by moderator)ut! dmr198 gave a great answer, and confirms what I read and understand. Any other Catholic brothers and sisters have any (name removed by moderator)ut. ??
 
FishyPete said:
Why does Mark mention that the 12 drank the wine before Jesus says the words “this is my blood”. I know its different in Mathew and Luke.

see here:

Mark 14:

…23And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Is it to be read that our Lord was speaking the words in verse 24 as he handed the cup over? or is it implied he said it during or afterwards.

Luke and Mathew are clear that he said it before, as is Paul clear I believe on this subject.

Why does Mark phrase it this way? Is there something to the Greek in the NT that can have the order of events inversed?

I was never clear on this, can someone help me out here?
Click to expand...
How many times did they pass the cup during a Passover celebration?
 
FishyPete said:
Thanks for your response! but isn’t the “this is my blood” the important part?
Click to expand...
Not really.

The “giving thanks” prior to the distribution was what is now called the epiclesis.

Over the years there were a series of battles over exactly where in the Canon of the Mass the consecration actually took place. The Western concept was that it takes place at the “words of institution” of “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”. The Eastern concept was that it takes place at the epiclesis, where God is called upon to bring his Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine.

During Paul VI’s pontificate a decision had to be made about the validity of the Eucharistic Canon of the so-called Nestorian church’s liturgy, a very early Christian rite that lacked both the words of institution and a clear epiclesis. He ruled that it was valid.

The reason was that in narrative form it recalled the Last Supper and Our Lord’s institution of the Sacrament with the intent to do what the Church does. That’s what constitutes a valid consecration.

I am pretty Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ knew what He was about at the Last Supper, so the slight textual differenc is interesting but in the end irrelevant.

.
 
Hello Fishy Pete.

I actually put my brain in gear over night and tried to figure out exactly why this is important and then it dawned on me those tricky Protestants are trying to prove their way of confecting a type of consecrated host would be done as it is found in Scripture, because they believe in Sola Scriptura and they are busy about proving to the Catholic, that’s you Fishy Pete, that we aren’t doing it right because the Scriptures state it happened differently. I that is what brought you here. Am I getting closer?

Glenda
 
glendab said:
Hello Fishy Pete.

I actually put my brain in gear over night and tried to figure out exactly why this is important and then it dawned on me those tricky Protestants are trying to prove their way of confecting a type of consecrated host would be done as it is found in Scripture, because they believe in Sola Scriptura and they are busy about proving to the Catholic, that’s you Fishy Pete, that we aren’t doing it right because the Scriptures state it happened differently. I that is what brought you here. Am I getting closer?

Glenda
Click to expand...
yes!
 
Hello Fishy Pete.

I guess then you’ll have to wear away at their belief in Sola Scriptura first. You could also try Martignoni for that one too. He’s really good at quick and accurate Biblical defenses of all things Catholic. Check him out at the link I gave earlier.

Look on the bright side, at least the guys you are conversing with believe that there is something to eating the Bread of Life mentioned in John’s Gospel, so that is some of the battle. But if they don’t believe we’ve got the Transubstantiation correct because we aren’t Biblically supported in our Eucharistic Prayers, you could find an on-line copy of each Eucharistic Prayer from start to finish and just give it to them for their perusal and comments. They will probably bash it though and point out how much of it isn’t Scriptural. Our Sacrament is traditionally one area they relish bashing at least that’s what I’m told by others. I’m sure there are extensive apologetics for this particular debate, but I don’t have them for you. I’m no expert on anything but blueberry turnovers and Starbuck’s Sumatra blend this morning, but you have my support and go get 'em tiger!!! Rah Rah Rah! If I still had my pom poms, I’d shake them for you!

Glenda
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top