Jesus shed his blood “for many”?
One of the changes made to Roman Catholic Mass in English was in the Eucharistic Prayers. It used to say, “…my blood… will be shed for you and for ALL [my emphasis]…” (previously from 1973, it said “…for all men”). Now (since 2011) English-language Roman Catholicism has changed it so that Christ’s blood is “poured out for you and for MANY [again, my emphasis]”.
Did Jesus die “for many”? Or did Jesus die “for all”?!
The earliest account of Jesus’ last meal (1 Cor 11:25) mentions neither “shed” (Luke & Matthew) nor “for you” (Luke) nor “many” (Matthew and Mark) nor “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew)!
The difference between a kleptomaniac and a fundamentalist is that: a kleptomaniac takes things, literally; a fundamentalist takes things literally. Good luck to fundamentalists trying to work out what Jesus actually said at his last meal…
In any case, the presumption is that Jesus was speaking Aramaic where, if he used a “for many/all” word, it (like the Hebrew רבים rabbim) would have meant a large number, without any distinction whether it was “many” or “all”.
There have been (and are!) theological movements that Jesus didn’t die for all, that Jesus only died for the “elect”, for those who are “saved”. Within Catholicism, that’s usually referred to as Jansenism; within Protestantism, it’s TULIP Calvinism. Jansenism is named after the Dutch bishop of Ypres, Cornelius Jansen (1585 – 1638). He (like Jesus!!!) wouldn’t have recognises what his followers made of his teachings. Much was made of limited atonement (the “L” in TULIP) and irresistible grace (the “I” in TULIP). I’m not going to cherry pick biblical verses to argue that Jesus died for all (do your own work; you could start here) – certainly, cards on the table, I’m at the Pope Francis end of the spectrum: there might be a hell, but, if so, I suspect it’s empty. [If that tendency towards Universalism makes you ask what drives me to live well and spread Christ’s Good News, that’s a conversation we won’t be able to have if you’re still at Kohlberg’s Stage 1 of moral development!]
Jansenists imaged Jesus on the cross as at the top of this post. In usual crucifixion imagery, Jesus stretches his arms horizontally, welcoming all. The Jansenist image shows a much narrower embrace. Jansenist Jesus died for few. [You can see this influence, for example in Low Country artists, e.g. Rubens].
Some people were so extreme about the “for all” English translation of the Eucharistic Prayer that they claimed it is invalid and cannot consecrate the bread and wine (such RCs are unaware that the Vatican RC tradition accepts the validity of a Eucharistic Prayer with Jesus’ final meal story missing completely!!!)
The Old Catholic Church (an episcopal church that, like Anglicanism, has a complex history – and incidentally is now in full communion with Anglicanism) has been connected historically to Jansenism, so much so that it has sometimes been referred to as the Jansenist Church of Holland. One might think that it, hence, would translate this text as “for many”, but no – the Oud-Katholiek Kerkboek (Old Catholic Prayer Book, 1993) uses “velen” (“many”) in 8 Eucharistic Prayers, “u en alle mensen” (“you and all people”) in 3, and “voor u allen” (“for you all”) in one. So, it is unconcerned about this. [Incidentally, you will find incorrect information online (surprise!): Dutch Roman Catholicism uses “door allen” (“for all”) in both the 1973 and 1980 (current) translation].
[Incidentally, NZ Anglicanism in the Eucharistic Prayers formularies uses “many” 8 times, “all” twice, simply “for you” twice, and neither “many” nor “all” twice.]
Do follow:
The Liturgy Facebook Page
The Liturgy Twitter Profile
The Liturgy Instagram
and/or sign up to a not-too-often email
Dear Bosco
I’m wondering why the focus on the crucified Jesus as we approach Advent and Christmas.
I write these words in light of the John Smyth scandal and not convinced that spilling more ink on sin and atonement is the right and wise way to go for the Church going forward.
I introduced myself to a Quaker woman the other day, before the Smyth scandal broke, as “attending an Anglican church”.
She said, without hesitation, that Jesus was “a good man” but didn’t believe “he died for the sins of the world”. It’s as if that’s the main thing – and often the only thing – that the general public and even Christians associate with (Jesus as the) Christ.
What would it be like if we didn’t talk about sin for the next two thousand years? Because for the last two thousand that has certainly been the emphasis, and I’m not sure it’s been anything but a disaster sometimes.
Mark
Thanks, Mark. I can empathise with you in the unhealthy obsession with individual sin (and de-emphasis on corporate sin), but I would have thought that your example of the Smyth scandal is precisely an example of horrific sin (individual and shared).
If you are wondering how this particular blog post came about: I heard afresh the relatively-recently-changed RC wording (from “all” to “many”), encountered people promoting TULIP, and found out about the Jansenist crucifix.
However one phrases it (in Advent, Christmas, or other times), the question remains: does God love all or only some? I firmly believe all! And I think that we need to press this not simply in words but in the way we live.
Blessings.
It certainly is an example of horrific sin! But also an example of a man, a faith really, obsessed with sin, for whom our sins and Jesus dying for our sins is really the only show in town.
When we’ve really emphasized and understood and deeply internalized *original blessing*, then perhaps we can talk about sin. Until then, sadly, when we talk about sin I fear we just keeps on emphasizing (to the great collective unconsciousness):
Christianity is about sin
Christianity is about sin
Christianity is about sin
There is an educational/psychological approach, Mark, to state the positive rather than the negative. E.g. “Keep your hands to yourself” rather than “don’t hit”. The idea is that the brain hears the “to yourself” and “hit” – the negative is less perceived. You are more likely to fall if you’ve heard, “don’t fall” than if you hear “be stable”. I think this is part of what you are saying. I wonder if you see the Eastern lung of Christianity as doing this better. Blessings.
Oh, I didn’t last very long with the Jesus Prayer!
….”Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Because of its long tradition of natural theology, the Catholic tradition seems to have a march on Protestantism in this regard. Even a conservative document such as the recent Catechis *begins* with the “dignity” of all human beings (ok, they say “men”) as striving towards divine reality.
One Protestant group that are not sin-centric
is Quakers. They emphasize the “Light Within” and “That of God in all of us” as starting points, pointing to John’s Prologue. But perhaps even Quakers don’t go far enough – the Light and Life (of Christ) isn’t just within but beyond and all around; we are not just contained in the Word, “in Christ” as Paul says (Quakers, when they do retain theology, tend to spiritualize everything – including “Christ”) but the Word erupts as Flesh in our midst (or, as Richard Rohr would say, Christ is the union of spirit and matter).
Christ as the union of spirit and matter – in all things, not just men or human beings. As the basic stuff of the Cosmos, beyond disenchanted materialism or disembodied spirit. As the stuff of us. Calling us forward to greater Christlike being.
…might we begin somewhere here instead? It’s pretty good news.
Can you tell us more about the Vatican 2 prayer that doesn’t have the meal story?
The Vatican declared The Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari (which lacks the Last Supper story) as valid on 17 January 2001. Blessings.
That is unhelpful!
My “bare minimum” eucharistic prayer is:
– thanksgiving
– the institutional narrarive.
(Speaking personally, not making a pronouncement from the episcopal “throne”.)
Sometimes I wonder how much Jansenism has influenced NZ Catholicism? My understanding is that after it was opposed and declared a heresy, it had a strong afterlife in certain parts of the Catholic world, notably Ireland. Might we say that NZ Catholicism has often, historically, been more of a repressive, Irish variety than, say, of a warmer, more earthy Mediterranean variety?