BLOOD (רָ?ס, Aram . [Note: Aramaic.] דּ?ֽ?מִ?א, Gr. αἷ?μα).—Underlying the use of the term ‘blood’ in the Gospels is its root conception, as contained in the OT. This root conception is clearly seen, e.g., in Leviticus 17:11, Leviticus 17:14 ‘ The life (‘soul’ נָ?פָ?שׁ?) of the flesh is in the blood … it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.… for as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof … for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof.’ the close connexion between ‘life’ and ‘blood’—amounting even to identification—was doubtless realized by man from very early times; for constant experience taught him that loss of blood entailed weakness, while great loss resulted in death, i.e. the departure of life. This would have been noticed again and again in everyday life, whether in hunting, or in slaughtering (both for food and sacrifice), or in battle. * [Note: Cf. H. L. Strack, Der Blutaberglaube in der Menschheit4, p. 1 ff.] This belief was by no means confined to the Hebrews, but was universal in ancient times, just as it is now among primitive races. * [Note: Rob. Smith, Rel. of the Semites2, p. 337 ff.; Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heid.2 p. 226 ff.; Strack, op. cit. p. 9 ff.; J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough2, i. 353, where other authorities are cited; Bahr, Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus2, i. 44 ff.; Trumbull, Studies in Oriental Social Life, p. 157 ff.]
The reiterated prohibition with regard to the eating of blood contained in the Hebrew Code was due, firstly, to the fact that God had made use of it as a means of atonement, and that therefore it ought not to be used for any other purpose; and, secondly, because it was believed to contain the soul or life. In the one case, the prohibition is due to the holy character of blood;† [Note: See, further, with regard to this point, the many interesting details in Trumbull’s the Threshold Covenant, and Doughty’s Arabia Deserta (2 vols.); the references are too numerous to quote, but both works will well repay careful study.] in the other, to its essential nature.‡ [Note: Cf. Strack, op. cit. p. 75 ff.; Franz Delitzsch, System der biblischen Psychologie, pp. 196, 202.] it being the centre from which animal life in all its various forms emanated. Blood was therefore holy from the Divine point of view, because God had sanctified it to holy uses; and it was holy from man’s point of view, both because it had been ordained as a means of atonement in the sight of God, and because human life, of which blood was the essence, was sacred to Him.
In the Gospels one or other of these conceptions underlies the use of the word ‘blood.’ Its use may be briefly summarized thus:
1. Blood in its material sense, e.g., the woman with the issue of blood (Mark 5:25, Luke 8:43). The power which went out from Christ stayed the flow of the woman’s blood; it is implied (Mark 5:26 ἁ?λλὰ? μᾶ?λλον εἰ?ς τὸ? χεῖ?ρον ἐ?λθοῦ?σα) that this outflow was the ebbing-out of her life. The ancient conception is, therefore, plainly present here.
2. Blood used in the sense of life (i.e. poured out in death). It is interesting to observe that in all the Gospel passages in which blood is used as synonymous with life, the reference is either to an OT occurrence, or else to Christ as fulfilling OT types. The passages are the following: Matthew 23:30 ‘We should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets’; Matthew 23:35 ‘That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar,’ cf. Luke 11:51, Matthew 27:4 ‘I have betrayed innocent blood’; Matthew 27:8 ‘the price of blood’; Matthew 27:25 ‘the field of blood’; Matthew 27:24 ‘I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man’; Matthew 27:25 ‘His blood be upon us.’ in each of these passages the meaning of blood as implying life is sufficiently clear.
3. In Luke 13:1 occurs a reference to ‘the Galilaeans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices.’ There is no reference to this event either in Josephus (although there is mention of a similar occurrence in Ant. xvii. ix. 3) or elsewhere; but the meaning appears to be that they were offering up their usual sacrifice in the ordinary course, when they were fallen upon and butchered by the Roman soldiery, probably as a punishment for some act of revolt [the restlessness of the Galilaeans was notorious, cf. Acts 5:37 ].
4. A further use of the word is seen in Matthew 16:17, where the expression ‘flesh and blood’ occurs.§ [Note: The expression σαρξ καἱ? αἷ?μα (also in the order αἶ?μα καὶ? εάρξ) is frequent in Rabbinical writing (בִ?שָ?ר ודָ?ם); ‘the Jewish writers use this form of speech infinite times, and by it oppose to ’ (Lightfoot, ae Heb. et Talm. [Gandell’s ed.] ii. 234); see also Sir_14:18, where ‘flesh and blood’ are compared to the leaves on a tree.] In this passage the use of ‘blood’ is somewhat modified from what has been found hitherto; the phrase σὰ?ρξ καὶ? αἶ?μα denotes what is human, abstractly considered; ‘the antithesis is between knowledge resulting from natural human development, or on the basis of natural birth, and knowledge proceeding from the revelation of the Father in heaven, or on the basis of regeneration’ (Lange). * [Note: Commentary on Matt. in loc. Cf. the words of Tholuck: ‘It designates humanity with reference to its character as endowed with the senses and passions’ (Com. on Matt.); see also Olshausen, Com. on the Gospels, vol. ii. (T. & T. Clark).] The expression therefore emphasizes the contrast between human and Divine knowledge (cr. Galatians 1:18 ‘immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood’; cf. also Hebrews 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15:50, Ephesians 6:12). The special meaning attaching to ‘blood’ here is that it belongs to human nature; and significant in this connexion is the passage Luke 24:39 a ‘spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye behold me having,’ where ‘flesh’ is clearly intended to include blood;† [Note: See, further, art. Body.] the primary difference in bodily structure between a natural and a spiritual body being the absence of blood in the latter. If in the ordinary human body blood is conceived of as being the source of life, the body without blood receives its life in a manner utterly different,—it is the life which comes from Christ: ‘I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly’ (John 10:10). Closely connected with this are the words in John 1:13 ‘… which were born, not of blood‡ [Note: The use of the plur. here ἔ?ξ αἱ?μάτων (Vulg. ex sanguinibus) appears, according to Westcott, ‘to emphasize the idea of the elements out of which in various measures the body is framed’ (Com. on St. John, in loc.; cf. also Godet’s Com. on St. John, vol. i. p. 357 ff. (T. & T. Clark).] … but of God’; here, too, the contrast is between that which is born ‘of blood,’ i.e. according to a natural birth, and that which is born ‘of God,’ i.e. according to a spiritual birth.
5. A very mysterious use of ‘blood’ is that contained in the words ‘bloody sweat’ (Luke 22:44).§ [Note: Regarding the text here, see Westcott-Hort, and Godet, in loc.] ‘It is probable that this strange disorder arises from a violent commotion of the nervous system, and forcing of the red particles into the cutaneous excretories.’ || [Note: | Stroud, Physical Cause of the Death of Christ, pp. 74, 380, quoted in Trumbull’s the Blood Covenant, p. 279 note; cf. also the letters of Dr. Begbie and Sir James Y. Simpson, given in App. i. of Hanna’s Last Day of Our Lord’s Passion.] ‘The intensity of the struggle,’ says Godet, ‘becomes so great, that it issues in a sort of beginning of physical dissolution. The words, as it were drops, express more than a simple comparison between the density of the sweat and that of blood. The words denote that the sweat itself resembled blood. Phenomena of frequent occurrence demonstrate how immediately the blood, the seat of life, is under the empire of moral impressions. Does not a feeling of shame cause the blood to rise to the face? Cases are known in which the blood, violently agitated by grief, ends by penetrating through the vessels which enclose it, and, driven outwards, escapes with the sweat through the transpiratory glands (see Langen, pp. 212–214).’¶ [Note: on Luke, ii. 306 (T. & T. Clark). There is certainly one other instance on record of a like mysterious flow of blood, that, namely, of Charles ix. of France. It is said of him that on his deathbed his bitterness of sorrow and qualms of conscience, on account of the massacre on St. Bartholomew’s Eve, were so intense that in the anguish of his soul he literally sweated blood.] See Sweat.
6. One other passage must be referred to before coming to the spiritual use of ‘blood,’ namely, John 19:34 ‘and straightway there came out blood and water.’ on the phenomenon of the effusion of water together with the blood, see Godet’s Gospel of St. John, iii. 274 f. With regard to the flowing of the blood, there seems to be a striking significance in the fact; it was a visible instance of the fulfilment of Christ’s own words: ‘Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfil …’ ** [Note: * Cf. the frequent occurrence of such phrases as ‘that the Scripture might be fulfilled.’] (Matthew 5:17-18); for it was of the essence of sacrifice under the Old Dispensation that blood should flow, * [Note: This was originally based on the conception of blood being the drink of gods (cf. Psalms 50:13); see Rob. Smith, op. cit. p. 233 ff.; Curtiss, Primitive Sem. Rel. To-day, p. 223: ‘The consummation of the sacrifice is in the outflow of blood.’] and that it should flow from a vital part, usually from the throat, though the spirit of the Law would obviously be fulfilled when the blood flowed from such a vital part as the region of the heart, the central part of man;† [Note: Cf. the words of Philo, de Concupisc. x.: ‘Some men prepare sacrifices which ought never to be offered, strangling the victim and stifling the essence of life, which they ought to let depart free and unrestrained’ (quoted by Kalisch, Leviticus, i. 184).] the sacrifice was consummated when the life, i.e. the blood, had flowed out.‡ [Note: ‘ Under the symbolic sacrifices of the Old Covenant it was the blood which made atonement for the soul. It was not the death of the victim, nor yet its broken body; but it was the blood, the life, the soul, that was made the means of a soul’s ransom, of its rescue, of its redemption’ (Trumbull, The Blood Covenant, p. 286). ‘Blood atones by virtue of the life that is in it’ (Bahr, op. cit. ii. 207).] Kalisch points out that, guided by similar views, the Teutons pierced the heart of the sacrificial victims, whether animals or men, because the heart is the fountain of the blood, and the blood of the heart was pre-eminently regarded as the blood of sacrifice.§ [Note: Kalisch, op. cit. i. 189.] See also the following article.
7. The passages which speak of the blood of Christ (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, John 6:53-56), i.e. of blood in its spiritual meaning, can be here only briefly referred to [see Atonement, Last Supper]. They must be taken in conjunction with such expressions elsewhere as ‘the blood of Christ’ (1 Corinthians 10:16, Ephesians 2:13), ‘the blood of the Lord’ (1 Corinthians 11:27), ‘the blood of his cross’ (Colossians 1:20), ‘the blood of Jesus’ (Hebrews 10:19, 1 John 1:7), ‘the blood of Jesus Christ’ (1 Peter 1:2), ‘the blood of the Lamb’ (Revelation 12:11).
From the earliest times among the ancient Hebrews the various rites and ceremonies, indeed the whole sacrificial system, showed the yearning desire for a closer union with God; this union was to be effected only through life-containing and life-giving blood. The very existence of these sacrifices proved (and the offering up of their first born sons only emphasized the fact) that men deemed the relationship between God and themselves to be unsatisfactory. Useless as these sacrifices were in themselves, they were at any rate (when not unauthorized) shadows of good things to come (Hebrews 10:1-4); and they served their purpose of witnessing to profound truths which God intended to reveal more fully as soon as man’s capacity for apprehension should have become sufficiently developed. The shedding of Christ’s blood effected a new relationship between God and man; it sealed a New Covenant, || [Note: | A covenant was always ratified by the shedding of blood.] and became the means of the salvation of many (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, cf. Luke 22:20). but the ancient conception, the God-revealed truth only dimly apprehended, was right: the life was in the blood, inasmuch as the shedding of blood brought life—‘I lay down my life, that I may take it again’ (John 10:17)—only it was a life which it was impossible to conceive of before the Author of it brought it to man. ‘Having in His own blood the life of God and the life of man, Jesus Christ could make men sharers of the Divine by making them sharers of His own nature; and this was the truth of truths which He declared to those whom He instructed.’¶ [Note: Trumbull, op. cit. p. 274.]
Literature.—There are many books which give information on this subject, but as regards the special relationship between ‘blood’ and Christ it is difficult to point to any particular work; many details are to be had, but they must be gathered from numerous sources; some of the more important of these are: Franz Delitzsch, System der biblischen Psychologie, Leipzig, 1855; P. Cassel, Die Symbolik des Blutes, Berlin, 1882; C. Bahr, Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus 2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred], 1874; F. Godet, Biblical Studies in the OT and NT (English translation by Lyttelton), London, 1876; L. J. Rückert, Das Abendmahl …, Leipzig, 1856; H. L. Strack, Der Blutaberglaube in der Menschheit 4 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred], München, 1892 (a work of extreme interest). A great fund of information is to be found scattered in the three books of H. C. Trumbull, The Blood Covenant, London, 1887, The Threshold Covenant, Philadelphia, 1896, Studies in Oriental Social Life, London, 1895; and in C. M. Doughty’s Travels in Arabia Deserta, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1888. Other works that should be consulted are: J. Lightfoot, Horae Heb. et Talm. [Note: Talmud.], 4 vols. (ed. Gandell), Oxford, 1859; Rob. Smith, Rel. of the Semites 2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred], London, 1894, Kinship and Marriage (ed. S. A. Cook), London, 1903; S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion To-day, London, 1902. Various notices will also be found in the Commentaries of Lange, Tholuck, Olshausen, Godet, and Westcott. See also the art. on ‘Blood’ and kindred subjects in the Bible Dictionaries, such as Hamburger, Riehm, Hastings, Cheyne, and the Jewish Encyclopedia.
W. O. E. Oesterley.