"My Blood of the covenant" + "Covenant in My Blood" = figurative/symbolic?!

[nuntym]

Now this is the most bizarre argument against the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist I have ever read. Over at

answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/

the author, a Catholic who has denied his faith and presents his arguments against Catholic teachings, had stated:

Here is another reason that Jesus’ words, “This is My body…This is My blood” cannot be taken literally. The Bible gives us four accounts of the Lord’s Supper: Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and I Corinthians 11:23-25. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus does indeed say, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” However, in the other two accounts, we see Jesus saying of the bread, “This is My body…”, but of the wine, He says, “This cup [wine] is the new testament in My blood…”. Now, right away the Catholic has a problem. If Jesus meant, “This bread is LITERALLY My body,” then He also had to mean, “This wine is LITERALLY a testament (covenant).”

But the wine is obviously not a literal covenant. A covenant is an intangible thing. It is not something you can hold in your hand. It is an agreement, a contract, a promise or vow. The wine itself is NOT a covenant… it is a SYMBOL of the New Covenant. The only way that these passages would make sense when compared to Matthew and Mark is if both the bread and the wine are symbolic in all four accounts.

Remember, just as God called Abraham’s circumcision (which was a SYMBOL) a “covenant” (Genesis 17:10-11), so does Jesus call the SYMBOL of the bread and wine, a “covenant” (Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-25).

[Emphasis my own]

answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/11/eucharist-part-2.html

Now the thing is, I know this argument to be wrong, and I think it’s flaw is in the original origins of the Hebrew word for covenant (a cut-where-blood-flows: source #1 and source #2), but I cannot synthesize a counter argument for this.

But anyways, I present this to all of you. Any thoughts?

 

[nuntym]

None?

 

[Nita]

…the author, a Catholic who has denied his faith and presents his arguments against Catholic teachings, had stated:

Here is another reason that Jesus’ words, “This is My body…This is My blood” cannot be taken literally. The Bible gives us four accounts of the Lord’s Supper: Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and I Corinthians 11:23-25. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus does indeed say, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” However, in the other two accounts, we see Jesus saying of the bread, “This is My body…”, but of the wine, He says, “This cup [wine] is the new testament in My blood…”. Now, right away the Catholic has a problem. If Jesus meant, “This bread is LITERALLY My body,” then He also had to mean, “This wine is LITERALLY a testament (covenant).”

But the wine is obviously not a literal covenant. A covenant is an intangible thing. It is not something you can hold in your hand. It is an agreement, a contract, a promise or vow. The wine itself is NOT a covenant… it is a SYMBOL of the New Covenant. The only way that these passages would make sense when compared to Matthew and Mark is if both the bread and the wine are symbolic in all four accounts.

Remember, just as God called Abraham’s circumcision (which was a SYMBOL) a “covenant” (Genesis 17:10-11), so does Jesus call the SYMBOL of the bread and wine, a “covenant” (Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-25).

[Emphasis my own]
​

1. The person is comparing act of circumcision to the Eucharistic elements (consecrated bread and wine). So beginning there, it is very important to note that the circumcision was real/literal – hardly symbolic! So also, the bread and wine changed into Our Lord’s body and blood are real, not symbolic.

In Genesis we see that circumcision is a part of the covenant (17:10 “This IS my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.” Also, 17:13 “…So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.”)

Likewise the Luke 22 passage shows that what was in the “cup” IS a part of the Covenant: Luke 22:20 “This cup which is poured out for you IS the new covenant in my blood.” Jesus shed blood IS an integral part of the New Covenant.
Both are literal: the wine is His blood, and His blood is the blood of the New Covenant.

1. The person says circumcision was a symbol. My translation uses the word “sign” – verse 11 "You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. I understand how it would be a sign of the covenant - a very real, visible, and permanent sign verifying the person was in covenant with God.
   I’m not sure in what manner the person means that circumcision was only a symbol in the Old Covenant. Maybe you could ask.
2. The person seems to have a very limited understanding of the meaning of “covenant” in Scripture. Covenant is the establishment of a relationship between two parties–between God and man in the covenants we are speaking about. Relationships involve actions between the parties**–tangible **acts. Those acts are part of the covenant/relationship. So, covenant establishes the relationship (Gen 17:7…for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your desendants after you.). It also establishes actions to be carried out to initiate the relationship, and ongoing requirements to uphold the relationship.
   (For example, the Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Covenant. Not only were the stone tablets very tangible, but so were the acts they decreed.)

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Now this is the most bizarre argument against the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist I have ever read. Over at

answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/

the author, a Catholic who has denied his faith and presents his arguments against Catholic teachings, had stated:

Here is another reason that Jesus’ words, “This is My body…This is My blood” cannot be taken literally. The Bible gives us four accounts of the Lord’s Supper: Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and I Corinthians 11:23-25. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus does indeed say, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” However, in the other two accounts, we see Jesus saying of the bread, “This is My body…”, but of the wine, He says, “This cup [wine] is the new testament in My blood…”. Now, right away the Catholic has a problem. If Jesus meant, “This bread is LITERALLY My body,” then He also had to mean, “This wine is LITERALLY a testament (covenant).”

Luke 22:20 says “And likewise the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’”

When he says this cup which is poured out for you, he is already referring to his blood, which will be shed the next day, poured out, at Calvary. The blood is the sign of the New Covenant - not wine, but blood. In Exodus 24:8, Moses ratifies the Old Covenant by sprinkling blood on the people and saying “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” Just as the Old Covenant was ratified with blood, so is the New Covenant. … it is not ratified with wine, but with blood.

Also, this writer is disregarding all the other instances where Jesus clearly says that this is my body and this is my blood. He mentions 1 Corinthians, but he doesnt mention 11:29: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

But the wine is obviously not a literal covenant. A covenant is an intangible thing. It is not something you can hold in your hand. It is an agreement, a contract, a promise or vow.

First of all, Jesus is not talking about wine, he is talking about His Precious Blood. in 1 Kings 8:21 it says, “And there I have provided a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.” Here, the tablet containing the ten commandments is referred to as “the covenant” - not a symbol of the covenant. Similarly, Jesus refers to his blood (the cup that is poured out for you) as the new covenant in my blood. Not a symbol, but as the covenant.

The wine itself is NOT a covenant… it is a SYMBOL of the New Covenant. The only way that these passages would make sense when compared to Matthew and Mark is if both the bread and the wine are symbolic in all four accounts.

“The cup that is poured out for you” is the blood of Jesus, not wine. Is Jesus pouring the wine out on the table? No. He is talking about his blood that will be shed the next day.

He brings up Matthew and Mark. Matthew 26:27-28 says, “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the firgiveness of sins.’” Jesus doesn’t say, this is symbolic of my blood, or this represents my blood, he says this is my blood.

He also conveniently ignores John 6, where Jesus is very clear that “unless you eat the flesh of teh 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 on 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) It’s pretty hard not to see exactly what Jesus is talking about there.

Remember, just as God called Abraham’s circumcision (which was a SYMBOL) a “covenant” (Genesis 17:10-11), so does Jesus call the SYMBOL of the bread and wine, a “covenant” (Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-25).

Actually, God tells Abraham, “This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be curcumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.” So, circumcision is not a symbol, but a sign of the covenant. Like the Eucharist is a sign of the New Covenant. When we eat the Precious Body and drink the Precious Blood of Jesus, we are renewing ourselves in the new covenant.

[Emphasis my own]

answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/11/eucharist-part-2.html

Now the thing is, I know this argument to be wrong, and I think it’s flaw is in the original origins of the Hebrew word for covenant (a cut-where-blood-flows: source #1 and source #2), but I cannot synthesize a counter argument for this.

But anyways, I present this to all of you. Any thoughts?

 

[nuntym]

Thank you Mea Culpa, Nita. You gave me some things to think about. I guess I would have to read Genesis 17 closer.