Audio only:
How can the Catholic Church teach that we actually eat and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus when Scripture forbids partaking of blood in Leviticus 17:10?
The author of Meeting the Protestant Challenge, Karlo Broussard, explains why it is acceptable for Jesus to teach us to drink his blood, and, more than that, why it makes sense that he would.
Cy Kellett:
Is it unbiblical to drink Christ’s blood? Karlo Broussard, next. Hello, and welcome to Focus, the Catholic Answers podcast for living, understanding, and defending your Catholic faith. I’m Cy Kellett, your host, and among the things that it’s hard to defend, actually, is the drinking of Christ’s blood. For obvious reasons, it’s hard to defend. I mean, you have to have … There are so many layers of faith that go into accepting that what you’re doing at mass is eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. And then you have to accept that you should be eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. In addition to all of that, be clear that it’s not just symbolic, what we’re talking about. We’re not just talking about symbolism, we’re talking about real body and real blood of Christ.
Well, here’s a problem that many of our Protestant brothers and sisters raise, why are you drinking blood? Jesus wouldn’t want you to drink real blood because the Old Testament forbids the drinking of blood. That’s a very serious objection. It’s a biblical objection. And as Karlo Broussard, who’s our guest today, has made plain many, many times, when a Protestant makes a biblical objection to Catholic faith, the Catholic is required to respond to that, because we do believe the Bible is the Word of God. So this is not a left field objection, this is an objection we have to be able to answer.
So what do we make of the objection that, “Hey, the Old Testament forbids the drinking of blood. Over here, you Catholics are saying you’re drinking real blood, not symbolic, real blood. How are you able to hold both of these realities? How can you Catholics hold both of these realities?” Well, if you want to explore those kinds of things, you bring in Karlo Broussard. Here’s Karlo to explain what the Catholic church teaches and why it justifies that teaching in the light of what is in the Old Testament.
All right. Thanks again for being with us, Karlo.
Karlo Broussard:
Well, thanks for having me, Cy.
Cy Kellett:
I have to admit to being a somewhat squeamish person.
Karlo Broussard:
Oh, yeah?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah. I’m the son of a surgeon, but I could never have been a surgeon myself. So we’re going to talk about blood today.
Karlo Broussard:
It’s funny you say that, brother, because we are two peas in a pod-
Cy Kellett:
Really?
Karlo Broussard:
… because I faint at the sight of blood.
Cy Kellett:
I just don’t want to hear about it. I don’t want to … Just, “Okay, fine.” I know there is blood, but leave me alone over there.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. Quick story. Back in Louisiana when I was doing buffing, buffing stores and stuff, not buffing up my muscles, but buffing-
Cy Kellett:
Which you do now.
Karlo Broussard:
I was loading up the buffer into the van and I nicked my knuckle, right? And so I went to rinse it off in the sink and I was like, “Man, this [inaudible 00:02:41] is kind of burning.” Next thing I knew, I woke up on the ground. I fell face flat-
Cy Kellett:
Oh, no.
Karlo Broussard:
… on the cement in the store, busted up my nose.
Cy Kellett:
Because of your blood?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. They had to call in the ambulance. The ambulance took me to the hospital. All they found was that I had a sinus infection and that I’m weak with blood. But what was interesting … I’m sorry, I got to share this story. A year before that is when The Passion of the Christ had first come out.
Cy Kellett:
Oh, yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
Okay. So I went and watched The Passion of the Christ first time, it was pretty intense. I went to watch it a second time with my wife and I passed out in the theater.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, because it’s horrible.
Karlo Broussard:
I came out of it saying, “Jesus. Jesus.” I thought it was some mystical experience, right? Well, a year later nick my knuckle and I pass out at the sight of it, and so I’m like, “Oh, man, it wasn’t a mystical experience.” Even to this day, man, when I get sight of blood or the kids get a bloody nose, I start getting queasy. I dropped to my knees one time when my son had a bloody nose. Yeah, we are two peas in a pod, brother.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. So we’re just going to have to … If you start feeling faint, just tell us. We’ll pause the tape and then we’ll come back, but it’s all about blood this time.
Karlo Broussard:
Yes it is.
Cy Kellett:
Here’s the challenge basically-
Karlo Broussard:
All right.
Cy Kellett:
… the challenge is, how can the Catholic Church teach … And this is a common way that you phrase challenges. How can the Catholic Church teach this when the Bible says this? [crosstalk 00:04:01] from your book.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. It’s the form of the challenge for my book, Meeting the Protestant Challenge, and here’s one way in which it takes form.
Cy Kellett:
So how can the Catholic Church teach that we actually eat and drink the body and blood of Jesus when the scripture forbids partaking of blood in Leviticus 17:10. The Bible reads, “If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them, eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.”
Karlo Broussard:
Pretty strong challenge, right? I mean on the face of it, here we are as Catholics saying we’re drinking the blood of Jesus in the chalice at holy mass, but the Bible clearly says that God’s going to put his face against those who drink blood and cut them off from among his people. So are we in that category? It would seem, right?
Cy Kellett:
Right. Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
So how do we meet this challenge? Well, I think the first thing we need to do, Cy, in response, is to think about whether this prohibition of drinking blood is a part of the natural moral law or not. Because if it is a part of the natural moral law, like this prohibition is something that’s flowing from our nature as human beings, this is something that’s going to be universally binding for all peoples at all times not subject to change.
Cy Kellett:
Like eating people, that would be opposed to the natural moral law, yes?
Karlo Broussard:
That’s an interesting question. To consider-
Cy Kellett:
I wonder.
Karlo Broussard:
… that we’d have to consider the moral philosophy. Let’s put that one off for the side. Let’s just use this example, committing adultery, right?
Cy Kellett:
Oh, yes [crosstalk 00:05:38].
Karlo Broussard:
Committing fornication, using contraception, right? And contracepting, same-sex sexual activity, killing the innocent, okay?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah. Right.
Karlo Broussard:
Stealing. These are acts that in and of themselves are intrinsically evil because they violate the good of our human nature. Oh, when you said eating people, were you assuming alive, like people alive or dead?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, I was. Now I’m getting into the gross stuff and I’m going to make you faint.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right.
Cy Kellett:
Let’s go with adultery. I think we can both stay awake for adultery.
Karlo Broussard:
All right. So getting back to the prohibition of drinking animal blood here, which is being prohibited here and drinking blood in general, I don’t see how we can say this is a part of the natural moral law for some reason. There’s nothing in the act of partaking of the blood of an animal that you have slain and that in some way violating the good of our human nature.
Cy Kellett:
Right. Right.
Karlo Broussard:
All right?
Cy Kellett:
Okay. That’s not contrary to the dignity of the animal or me or any [crosstalk 00:06:41]-
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. That’s right.
Cy Kellett:
There’s nothing intrinsic to that, that’s wrong.
Karlo Broussard:
Correct. There’s no evidence from reason that such an activity would be intrinsically evil and thus binding for all human beings at all times, all right? But for our Christian, I think we can make an argument from Jesus himself that this prohibition of partaking of animal blood is not a part of the natural moral law. Because consider Jesus’s command to drink his blood in John chapter six, when he says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you.” The implication is that there is a positive command there, drink my blood. Whether you take that symbolically or literally, either position you take, you still see that Jesus is issuing a command to drink his blood. Even in a symbolic view, if drinking blood were absolutely immoral and contrary to the natural moral law, well then surely Jesus would not be commanding us to do something immoral even to symbolically enact such an immoral activity. Right?
So you might consider the argument like this. If the prohibition were a part of the natural law, then Jesus would not command us to drink his blood. Even on the symbolic view.
Cy Kellett:
No, he would not do that.
Karlo Broussard:
But Jesus does command us to drink his blood. Therefore, the prohibition must not have been a part of the natural law, right? And that’s an argument that we can make as Christians. Now keep in mind this discussion and this challenge that’s offered to us is from our fellow Christian brothers and sisters, non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters. So it’s legitimate for us as a Catholic in response to offer an argument from Jesus himself to try and show that this prohibition does not belong to the natural moral law.
Now, why would I want to make that argument? I want to make that argument because if it’s not a part of the natural moral law, it’s a positive divine law that’s subject to change, right?
Cy Kellett:
Yes.
Karlo Broussard:
So for example, the positive divine law to worship God on this particular day, namely the seventh day of the Jewish week, well, that’s a ceremonial precept. That’s subject to change. It could be on Sunday. God could have chose Monday. God could’ve chose Tuesday. Right?
Cy Kellett:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
There’s nothing inherent in human nature that demands that we must worship God on the seventh day of the Jewish week, right? On the Saturday.
Another ceremonial precept, where God’s going to say, don’t eat this particular animal. You can eat that particular animal. These are positive divine laws that are subject to change on condition that God changes them, right? Only God can make these laws and change these laws, okay? So the point is that if this prohibition of partaking of the animal blood or partaking of blood even in general is not a part of the natural moral law, then it’s a positive divine law that is subject to change.
So here’s the question. The question now becomes, did such a law change with the advent of Christ? Did Jesus change that positive divine law? [crosstalk 00:10:03] Because if Jesus did not change it then that law would still be binding on us as Christians, so is there any evidence in the New Testament that this law of the prohibition of partaking of blood is no longer binding on us as Christians?
Cy Kellett:
I can think of two myself.
Karlo Broussard:
Go ahead. What you got?
Cy Kellett:
Well, I mean, the most obvious one is always that one that happens in the Acts of the Apostles with Peter. And that’s the one that we Christians always refer to. There’s also the part in Mark where he says, “What enters a man’s body is not what makes them unclean, it’s what comes out of him that makes him unclean.” And then Mark even says, I think… By saying that Jesus-
Karlo Broussard:
By saying that Jesus made all foods clean. Yeah, that’s correct. Jesus says in Mark 7:15, “There’s nothing outside of man which by going into him can defile him.” It’s not the blood going in that’s going to defile him, but the things which come out of a man will defile him. Okay? Now Mark tells us in verse 19, “When Jesus said this, he declared all foods clean.” That would include blood.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah. All means all.
Karlo Broussard:
All means all. Right. So Jesus himself is revealing that that prohibition is no longer binding on us as Christians. And then you mentioned also the situation with Peter-
Cy Kellett:
It’s just so explicit with Peter. I mean, kill and eat.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. Jesus in Acts 10:9-16, this is where we read the vision that Peter has of the sheep with all of the animals that he would have been prohibited from eating as a Jew, right? And we read, “All kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.” And then Jesus says in the vision, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.” So Jesus is commanding Peter, take and eat, take and eat, take and eat. And Jesus says, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.” So the prohibition of partaking of blood, that was one of those precepts involved with the various prohibitions of partaking of various kinds of foods. So if the foods are being declared clean, well, then it follows that the blood of those foods would be declared clean as well, and would not defile one if one were to partake of the blood of these animals that one is eating. So we see from Jesus that the prohibition is no longer binding for Christians.
Now, this brings up a question, well, what about Paul? Did Paul have anything to say about this? And the answer is yes. There’re a few passages that we could turn to to see how Paul, or to show that Paul actually interprets Jesus the way we’re interpreting him. Paul confirms for us our interpretation of Jesus here. For example, in Colossians 2:16-17, Paul writes, “Having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands, this referring to Jesus, set aside, nailing it to the cross. Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a New Moon or a Sabbath.” Notice how Paul includes the precepts governing the partaking of food and drink with other types of precepts, like the precept concerning which day of the week you’re going to worship God, namely the Sabbath.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah. These are not natural laws. These are all part of the Jewish religious practice. Ceremonial laws.
Karlo Broussard:
That is correct. And Paul is saying, these are no longer binding on us. Let no one pass judgment on you concerning these things. And he goes on, “These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” So the laws governing the partaking of food and drink in the Old Testament are no longer… Those ceremonial precepts are no longer binding on us as Christians. And then 1 Corinthians 8:8 is another example. Paul writes, “Food will not commend us to God; we are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.” So whether we’re partaking of the food and the drink or not partaking of the food and the drink, it makes us no different as Christians. We have liberty with regard to such things.
So we have evidence from Jesus and we have evidence from Paul that indicate this prohibition of partaking of blood in Leviticus 17:10 is no longer binding on us as Christians. And so you could construct an argument like this, if the dietary laws of the old law are no longer binding for Christians, and the prohibition of consuming blood was a part of those dietary laws, then it follows that the prohibition of consuming blood is no longer binding for us as Christians.
Cy Kellett:
So Jesus then commands us to eat his body and drink his blood. That’s not a contradiction. We don’t have to say, well, that’s just symbolic because if it wasn’t symbolic… Because that’s usually the way the argument is made. Well, that’s just symbolic. And I know you argued against even that, but we can drink his blood in other words because he commanded it and it doesn’t contradict the natural law and we’re not bound by the ceremonial law. So why does he command us to drink his blood?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. What’s the rationale behind that?
Cy Kellett:
Let’s take this one step further.
Karlo Broussard:
The Catholic Bible scholar, Brant Pitre, makes a good argument in his book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, where this passage of Leviticus 17, rather than being a challenge to the Catholic position actually provides a rationale as to why Jesus would command us to drink his blood. Because in, I think it’s verse 18 of Leviticus 17 or within the surrounding preceding and subsequent verses there I’d have to check to be specific, but it does talk about the reason why they were abstaining from the blood of the animals offered in sacrifice and to just animals in general, because they believe the life of the animal was in the blood. Life is in the blood. That was their Jewish mentality.
And so now we come to Jesus and Jesus tells us that if we want his life, if we want eternal life, we need to drink his blood. And that makes sense against this Jewish sort of background of how they viewed the life of the animal and the blood. You want the life of the thing whose blood you partaking of? You want the life of the thing? Then you partake of its blood. And here Jesus against that backdrop is commanding us, his disciples, to drink his blood. Why? So that we can have his life. Why? Because life is in the blood. So rather than Leviticus 17:10 and its context posing a threat to the Catholic belief in the Eucharist, it actually supports it. It provides a rationale as to why Jesus would give us his blood and that he commands us to give us his blood.
So we’ve already said, it’s not a part of the natural law, right? And then we’re asking the question, is this still binding on us? Well, if Jesus is commanding us to drink his blood, that is a New Testament positive command that supersedes the old. Which is very similar to what Jesus does in his ministry. “You have heard it said, but I say to you.” And so here we have a positive command that supersedes that of the old, yet more evidence that this prohibition is no longer binding on us as Christians.
Cy Kellett:
I just realized something. In our last two conversations did Baptism and we did the Eucharist, so now we’re going to need to get you to do an apologetic of Confirmation and Anointing of the Sick.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah, well, we’ll have to-
Cy Kellett:
I don’t know. Are there objections to those? I suppose there probably are [crosstalk 00:17:59]-
Karlo Broussard:
There are, yeah. There’re different kinds of objections posed to what we might appeal to us Catholics for biblical support. Indeed, yeah. So we’ll have to tackle those.
Cy Kellett:
Well, thank you very much for confirming us in our faith in the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist [inaudible 00:18:15].
Karlo Broussard:
Well, thank you Cy, it was a joy being with you my friend.
Cy Kellett:
Happy New Year to you.
Karlo Broussard:
Same to you.
Cy Kellett:
I like it when Karlo does that little intellectual jujitsu where the biblical objection about drinking the blood of animals actually reinforces, it doesn’t undermine what Catholics teach about drinking the blood of Christ, if you understand that the prohibition is rooted in the belief that life is in the blood and that Christ wants to communicate his life to us. Not only does he want to, he does, every time the Eucharist is confected he shares his body and blood with us. He shares his very life with us and if you’re not partaking of that… Well, it may be because of the COVID, but if it’s because you have some other objection to the Eucharist, I highly, highly, highly recommend you somehow overcome your objections. Come to the Eucharist. Christ wants to meet you there. He wants to meet each and every one of us there, it’s the greatest gift. The gift that Christ gives us each time in the Eucharist, the gift of himself, human and divine.
Hey, we’d love to hear from you. You can send us an email to focus@catholic.com. We’d also like you to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, so that you’ll be notified when new episodes come out, and if you’re watching on YouTube, please like and subscribe. Finally, give us money. We need money to keep doing these podcasts. And if you’ve got some and you’d like to share it, go to givecatholic.com. I’m Cy Kellett, we’ll see you next time, God willing, right here on Catholic Answers Focus.