'Blood' in relation to Christ

[Marie C.]

I hope I'm posting this in the right forum. I believe it is a Christological issue.
In western theology 'blood' is related to Christ and animal sacrifice of the OT which develops their theology of 'blood atonement'. They somehow relate this in a blood guilt sort of manner, which seems to me like a pagan concept. Like in appeasing the gods by some manner of trade.

I cannot fathom how they relate this to Christ. I do see the implications of 'first' (in relating Jesus Christ, the Son of God) as first fruits of sacrifice, and the Levitical priesthood did represent the first born of Israel (first fruits). And the sacrifices were eaten by the priests, and so, where also their sustenance (as Christ is to us). These things I can see in relation to Christ, but not literal 'blood'.

Can someone clarify word etymology, which may have something to do with this. Or the ontological implications of Christ in literal blood, as I'm not seeing this in western theology. Blood in scripture in relation to Christ to me, relates His humanity. The first church council at Jerusalem in Acts states Christians are to have nothing to do with blood. So why are western Christians so obsessed with blood? I find it rather offensive.

What do patristics say on the matter? I'm not sure if this falls under Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, forgive me.

Thank you for reading this.

[Father David Moser]

I hope I'm posting this in the right forum. I believe it is a Christological issue.
In western theology 'blood' is related to Christ and animal sacrifice of the OT which develops their theology of 'blood atonement'. They somehow relate this in a blood guilt sort of manner, which seems to me like a pagan concept. Like in appeasing the gods by some manner of trade.

I cannot fathom how they relate this to Christ....

I'm not sure I can answer your question, however, I think that I can contribute a bit to the discussion. In St Basil, the blood is described as closely identified with the soul. This is consistent with the OT and later ideas of the spilling and consuming of blood. When one drank the blood of one's opponent, one literally consumed the soul of one's opponent, taking for one's self the strengths and mights. When two men mingled their blood (ie "blood brothers") they literally "mixed" their souls so that they become related. When the Hebrews were warned against the consumption of the blood of animals (hence the regulations for kosher butchering of livestock - killing by draining the blood of the animal) it was so that the person eating the meat did not also take on the bestial passions of the animal so consumed. When we as Christians partake of the Most Holy Body and Most Precious Blood, we do take in the spiritual nature of Christ inasmuch as we are able to bear it. I think this identification of "blood" and "soul" might be of use here in talking about the relationship of our Lord's sacrifice and blood.

Fr David Moser

[Marie C.]

Thank you for the reply Fr Moser.
Seems we both see the ontological aspect, but not this modern American confusion of the matter of blood.

It may be language, as the English language can be quite confusing depending on how it is being translated from an original language. Then of course there is also the influence of history on the matter as well, which many times is seen in a translation.

I did look at English etymology, which only adds to confusion of the matter. As 'bless' and 'blood' are both old English terms for 'marking with blood'.

Then there is the matter of history, which includes an old European tradition of a ritual murder legend first formulated by an East Anglian monk eight hundred and forty-five years ago--namely, that of ritual crucifixion. And this in relation to a popular view of the time, namely 'blood libel' or 'martyred innocent'.

The two traditions of blood libel and "martyred innocent" arose separately and were associated with markedly different behavior patterns on the part of the accusers, but in subsequent centuries elements from both traditions became intertwined so that such distinctions no longer mattered.

In the middle ages, chroniclers, historians, and balladeers would take the news and rumors they heard and re-shape them to fit a recognizable narrative pattern, filling in the gaps and tailoring the account according to what they thought they already "knew" about their world and about Jewish behavior.

From this confusing mix I believe Americans have formulated their views, propagated by their churches as well, even if in an illusory manner.

I believe Orthodox in America can address this if they have the proper patristics and history to clarify the historical error which has been incorporated into American Christian beliefs.

As you can see I've done a bit of study on the matter. But I am seeking patristics to further clarify it as it relates to Christology. And how this distortion came about through historical misconceptions or myths.

My concern is not only of the Christological issues being distorted on the matter, but the psychological effects on Christians of such thoughts. As it also seems to be breeding a mental disorder seen in secret blood letting done by Christians. I am only assuming this matter may be the case of such distorted thoughts of Christ and the relation of blood with His crucifixion, as they assume it relates to Jewish paxis.

If I am pursuing this in an incorrect manner, someone please direct me otherwise.

Thank you for your time in reading this.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

A very interesting beginning of a discussion.

Perhaps it is best not to become too symbolic and complex? Blood is life: the things most fundamental to animate existence. One can offer nothing more than one's blood: it is the offering of one's very being and existence.

Patristic usage seems to focus on this:-

Cain sheds blood; Abel's life is given to death.

Abel's blood 'cries out'; life abhors death.

Sin makes impure; life is polluted.

Sacrifice renders pure; polluted life is offered to God, who alone can make fallen life whole.

Christ sheds his blood; Life gives his life for the life of all.

Perhaps? Just a few thoughts.

INXC, Dcn Matthew