Here’s a report about Danish teens using modern Vampire stories as platforms to think of spiritual matters. Given their immense popularity in the U.S., I also think that these stories can be drawn on to consider theological concepts with teens (and teens at heart) such as the Real Presence in the Supper, the relationship between the New and Old Testaments, and the work of Jesus Christ.
Both Vampire stories and the Christ story center on the identification of life with blood. This starts with Noah in the Old Testament. God tells Noah that he can eat animal flesh, but not animal blood, “You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Gn 9.4). Still, even in the OT, fallen humanity desperately needs the life that is in the blood. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement” (Lev 17.11, cf., Lev 11.14, Dt 12.23).
While the Old Testament flatly prohibits the eating of blood with the flesh, with the coming of Jesus Christ, the New Testament commands the practice, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (Jn 6.53-54).
Vampire stories invert this picture. Rather than the resurrected Lord who willingly offers his own sacrificed body and blood to give humans eternal life, Vampires are resurrected lords who sacrifice unwilling humans to take their blood for eternal life for themselves. The pivot around which both stories turn is the affirmation that the life of the flesh is in the blood.
So two points.
First, the Lord’s Supper mediates life to humanity precisely because the life of the flesh is in the blood. The only source of eternal life for humans is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Without being overly literal in our expectations, it seems to me that, taken as a whole, the Bible establishes the natural expectation that we must really receive the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in order for his sacrifice to minister life to us. If there is no Real Presence in the wine and the bread, then we cannot receive life from Jesus Christ, and we are yet in our sins.
Secondly, we see movement from the Old to the New Testament. The Old Testament prohibits humanity from seeking life by drinking the blood of animals. They cannot save. “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb 10.4). In doing so, even the Old Testament directs us to look to a future sacrifice by which we receive definitive atonement. God didn’t prohibit blood drinking in the Old Testament because it was repulsive, he prohibited it because it was too attractive, and humanity’s idolatrous impatience would have had us seeking to receive forgiveness in the blood of creatures who could not provide it.
A final observation on modern Vampire tales. Contrary to the horror stories of old, in many modern stories there are “good” vampires. That is, vampires who resist their natural inclination to feast on human blood. They instead seek to serve and protect humanity, denying the urges of their flesh. This is an interesting turn and can prompt discussion of when it is right to do what our nature urges, and when is it right to resist that nature.
James R. Rogers is department head and associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University. He leads the “New Man” prison ministry at the Hamilton Unit in Bryan, Texas, and serves on the Board of Directors for the Texas District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
May 11th, 2012 | 6:15 pm
Yes. Life is in the blood. The life in the blood of animals — the life of brutes without rational souls — is beneath the dignity of God’s people and is forbidden. The divine life that is in the blood of God’s Son is infinitely above us, and is only accessible to us at all because the scandalously humble God/Man offers it those who simply believe Him instead of leaving him (John 6:66) saying to themselves, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (John 6:60)
May 11th, 2012 | 11:01 pm
I still remember the poster, though I saw it only in a vampire book: Dracula looming above a woman who was wearing a crucifix, and the stern injunction: Are your children learning about the power of the cross from the Late Late Show?
May 12th, 2012 | 11:53 am
While the Old Testament flatly prohibits the eating of blood with the flesh, with the coming of Jesus Christ, the New Testament commands the practice . . .
Actually, unless you count the Eucharist as actually eating blood with flesh, the New Testament forbids the practice as well. The first followers of Jesus were Jews, and we know they followed Jewish dietary laws. It was only when there began to be Gentile converts that the issue of possibly not following Jewish dietary restrictions arose. It was settled definitively by what is now called the Council of Jerusalem, which took place in about the year 50, roughly 20 years after the crucifixion. The Council and the decision they arrive at is found in Acts 15. Here is the key part:
The Old Testament prohibition against consuming blood is not undone by the New Testament, and exactly why Christians ignore what is clearly stated in scripture basically has no good explanation that I have ever heard.
May 12th, 2012 | 6:47 pm
I still remember the poster, though I saw it only in a vampire book: Dracula looming above a woman who was wearing a crucifix, and the stern injunction: Are your children learning about the power of the cross from the Late Late Show?
Hey, there are actually worse ways to learn this stuff.
My experience with kids has been that vampire stories are used to discuss issues that can’t be articulated directly – for instance, boundary issues; issues of what is reasonable and fair to be expected to give, vs. what is unreasonable (enter into here the language of human sacrifice).
Does love have to hurt? Do appetites necessarily have to cause pain to others?
Not all, but many vampire stories may be viewed as stories by and for people who are trying to find their way back to God.
May 12th, 2012 | 10:49 pm
David -
I guess Jesus was just beating his gums and wasting breath in John 6. I didn’t realize that comments referring to animal sacrifice in Acts 15 elevated the disciples over their Master in John 6.
The Old Testament prohibition was against animal blood. Jesus made quite a distinction between that, and His Own Blood in the Holy Eucharist.
He was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, not beholden to it, and John 6 makes it quite clear that His new covenant would be quite different.
May 13th, 2012 | 3:57 pm
[...] First Thoughts, which is currently talking about Vampires and the Eucharist. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in [...]
May 13th, 2012 | 4:21 pm
jb,
It is not clear to me what you are saying. I am not an expert on Eucharistic theology, but I don’t believe the Eucharist was ever considered to violate Jewish dietary laws. Jesus speaking of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the Gospel of John would have been shocking to contemporary listeners, but I certainly don’t think the primary reaction of Jewish listeners would have been due to prohibitions on consuming blood.
At the time of the Council of Jerusalem, Jewish Christians were still following Jewish dietary laws. Celebrating the Eucharist did not force them to choose between the prohibition on eating blood and consuming wine at a Eucharistic celebration. I don’t see John 6 as in conflict with Acts 15. Exactly how the Eucharist was understood in the very early Church is a fascinating topic which I am not competent to speak on, but I do believe I am correct in saying that the Jewish Christians didn’t think they were literally eating human flesh and drinking human blood.
My point is that Jesus saying he would give his flesh to be eaten and his blood to be drunk was not in opposition to the existing Jewish dietary laws, and Jewish Christians followed those dietary laws in the early Church. The Council of Jerusalem, in requiring Gentile Christians still to avoid the practice of consuming blood did not contradict anything Jesus said in the Gospel of John. However, in Acts 15 we do have a clear command that everyone—Jewish Christians and Gentile converts alike—must refrain from consuming (animal) blood. This command would seem to be as authoritative as any New Testament command, yet it is not followed today.
I wouldn’t even want to begin to try to discuss exactly how eating the flesh and blood of Jesus is to be understood, but in Catholicism, it is certainly not understood as cannibalism. Consuming consecrated wine would not violate a prohibition on drinking blood, if one still existed within Christianity, and consuming consecrated bread would not be considered to be eating flesh in the same sense as eating meat. Otherwise in times past when eating meat was prohibited on Fridays, Catholics would not have been permitted to receive communion.
While I read James R. Rogers’s piece with interest, it strikes me that one must approach with caution any attempt to equate the Eucharist with the actual consumption of human flesh and blood in a way that dietary laws would apply to it.
May 14th, 2012 | 6:00 am
[...] via Vampire Stories and the Real Presence » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog. [...]
May 14th, 2012 | 12:47 pm
“The Old Testament prohibition against consuming blood is not undone by the New Testament, and exactly why Christians ignore what is clearly stated in scripture basically has no good explanation that I have ever heard.”
I often wondered about that. Of course it never came up for me as I have never had the slightest desire to eat a blood pudding. I never insisted on eating meat from a kosher butcher though. I do prefer it fairly well done.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact