Broad meadows

In the last installment, we were examining the words of institution at the last supper. In part 5, we used the biblical definition provided by Paul to determine that the body of Christ is the church, and that in the act of breaking the bread we can understand that this act is meant to prophesy the church breaking up, which happens subsequently during the Reformation.

Today we will look at the second half of Jesus’ words at the last supper and what they are meant to convey.

”Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matthew 26:27-29

As I go along in this process, phrases are added to the prophetic mix that can also be investigated to add meaning. As we look at the verses above, you could certainly add drink, blood, covenant, poured out, forgiveness and this fruit of the vine to the things we can look up, but I would like to zero in on poured out.

The first instance of the phrase “poured out” in scripture is by Jacob in Genesis 35:14. It is a drink offering to God and it is poured out. When Moses is ordaining Aaron and his sons, the blood of the atoning sacrifice (forgiveness) is placed on the horns of the altar and the rest is poured out at the base of the alter in Leviticus 8. Aaron does the same thing when he begins his priestly ministry in Leviticus 9.

The Old Testament story that stands out to me, though is found in 2 Samuel 23:13-16:

“At that time David was in the stronghold, and the Philistine garrison was at Bethlehem. David longed for water and said, “Oh, that someone would get me a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem!” So the three mighty men broke through the Philistine lines, drew water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem and carried it back to David. But he refused to drink it; instead, he poured it out before the LORD. “Far be it from me, LORD, to do this!” he said. “Is it not the blood of men who went at the risk of their lives?” And David would not drink it.”

So because David believed that this water represented the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives, he would not drink. No, he “poured it out before the LORD.” The only reason that I can think of to have such an account is to point out that what one believes about the consumption of blood would be equal to the actual consumption of blood, an act as we have discussed earlier that is forbidden in the Law of Moses.

In terms of the Lord’s supper, this then harkens back to the prophecy in Psalm 16 that was discussed in part 3 about the divergence of belief about the substance of this ceremonial meal. In that part, we see a cup that is secure and libations of blood that are not poured out. How bad, then, is it to have a wrong belief and does it signify anything larger? I’ll begin to examine that in the next installment.