In my article, Was Christ's Blood Shed at the Last Supper? I responded to a technical argument, based on the Greek of Matt 26:28 by Ludwig Ott and Robert Sungenis, that the use of the participle ἐκχυννόμενον, coupled with the present tense (εστιν) means that Christ's blood was shed at the Last Supper itself, showing that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice.
I would like to add to the body of evidence refuting this interesting but exegetically flawed approach to the text by noting that a leading Roman Catholic grammarian disagreed with the interpretation of the present participle as forwarded by the likes of Ott and Sungenis, showing that the present participle, even when coupled with ειμι (“to be”) in the present, can refer to a then-future event:
283. In place of the future participle the present one is used (as in Hebrew and Aramaic), e.g. Matt 26,25 ‘Ιουδας ο παραδιδους αυτοω ειπεν <<who was to betray Him>>; Mt 25,14 <<a certain man αποδημων>> where the context shows the sense to be future. In Jo 17,20 Our Lord says, in the priestly discourse <<I ask not for these alone but also περι των πιστευοντων>>, meaning those who <<are to believe>> and there is thus no force in the argument that since the participle is present the words are those not of Christ but of John. So too Lk 2,34 <<a sign to be contradicted>> σημειον αντιλεγομενον, cf. also Lk 1,35 το γεννωμενον <<what is to be born>>; Lk. 14,31; Acts 21,2f; 26,17.
This must be born in mind in interpreting the words of institution of the Eucharist. Lk 22,19f: τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον (<<given for you>>, which may be understood atemporally) . . . τουτο το ποτεηριον το υπερ ημων εκχυννομενον (<<shed for you>>, likewise). A theological argument in favour of the sacrificial character of the Lord cannot be based on the mere fact that the participles are present ones (on the grounds that if the reference were to the sacrifice of the cross the future would have been used).
284. The question may be raised, whether the present participle may not at times stand for the future one indicating the end in view, in which case the present participle wold itself take on a possible final sense. In Mt 20,20 we have: τότε προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ . . . προσκυνοῦσα καὶ αἰτοῦσά τι ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, where αἰτοῦσά seems to mean the intention of asking; in any case the context puts the request as subsequent only—So too in Mat 22,16 the Pharisees <<send to Him disciples λεγοντας>> (variant reading). Cf. also Lk 2,45; 14,21; 15,27; 18,23; 19,18; 21,16; 2 Pet 2,9.
(Maximillian Zerwick, Biblical Greek [trans. Joseph Smith; 4th ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963], 95-96)
Examples in the Greek New Testament of the participle being coupled with the present of ειμι, include the following texts: Matt 25:14; 26:25; John 17:20; Luke 1:35; 2:34; 14:31; Acts 21:2f; 26:17.
The Douay-Rheims and New American Bible translations, both Roman Catholic translations, translate the participle in Matt 26:28 as having a future sense:
The Douay-Rheims and New American Bible translations, both Roman Catholic translations, translate the participle in Matt 26:28 as having a future sense:
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. (DR)
For this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many of the forgiveness of sins. (NAB)
The grammatical and exegetical difficulties with the proposal of Ott and Sungenis are overwhelming.
Furthermore, as I noted in my post, The Last Supper was not a Propitiatory Sacrifice, Sungenis contradicts himself in his book, Not By Bread Alone, on the issue of whether the Last Supper itself was propitiatory sacrifice.
For Further Reading
