Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, wrote:
[T]he sentence in Mt 26:28 and Mk 14:14: "For this is my blood of the Covenant which is being poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" includes the present participle "is being poured out" along with the present indicative "is" in the phrase, "this is my blood." The present participle, being poured out, denotes an action in progress or simultaneous with the action of the principal verb, is. In Greek grammar this is a special case. When the present participle is used with the present indicative, the time denoted by the participle is not the near or distant future, but strictly the present. This would mean that the blood, at the time Jesus is speaking, is presently being poured out, that is, it is the blood of Jesus under the appearance of wine. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2009], 126-27; emphasis in original)
Such mirrors the words of Ludwig Ott on p. 404 of his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
That the action of the Sacrifice is consummated in the present time is indicated by the present form of the participles διδόμενον (Lk.) and ἐκχυννόμενον (Mt., Mk., Luke), even if these do not exclude a reference to the proximate future. Especially to be noted is Luke 22:20, where the pouring-out of the chalice is asserted (τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον … τὸ ὑπερ ὁμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον) and thereby reference made to the present-day Eucharistic celebration. It follows from the mandate,: “Do this in commemoration of Me” (Luke 22:19; cf. 1 Cor. 11:24), that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is to be a permanent institution of the New Testament.
The Greek of Matt 26:28 reads:
τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
This is my blood of the covenant which is being shed for many for the remission of sins. (my translation)
There are no significant textual variants of this verse; some manuscripts have the adjective καινης ("new"), but even if such is not original, Jesus is clearly inaugurating the New Covenant.
The term εκχυννομενον is the present passive participle form of the verb εκχεω (to pour out/shed). Catholic apologists, such as Ott and Sungenis quoted above, have argued that (1) εκχεω is a sacrificial term in the LXX, implying that Christ was teaching that the Eucharist itself is a sacrifice and (2) by using the present passive participle of the verb, Matthew is teaching that Christ's blood was being shed at the Last Supper. However, both these claims are based on eisegesis.
The Last Supper is a sacrificial meal, to be sure, and as a result, Christ would use sacrificial language, but it is done in memorial of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. There is nothing in the New Testament that shows the Eucharist itself to be a propitiatory sacrifice. Indeed, the New Testament itself precludes any "re-presentation" of Christ's sacrifice. In Koine Greek, the term εφαπαξ denotes a once-for-all action that is never to be repeated (Johannes E. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed. S.V., εφαπαξ) and predicates this upon Christ's atoning sacrifice and entering into the holy of holies:
For in that he died, he died unto sin once (εφαπαξ); but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. (Rom 6:10)
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once (εφαπαξ) when he offered up himself. (Heb 7:27)
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once (εφαπαξ) into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb 9:12)
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (εφαπαξ). (Heb 10:10)
That the biblical texts do not support the Catholic belief that the Eucharist is a "re-presentation" of the sacrifice of Christ can be seen in Paul's teachings on the Eucharist. In 1 Cor 11:26, we read that the Eucharist is not a "re-presentation" of Christ but a proclamation of the atoning sacrifice and death of Christ. The Greek term the KJV translates as "shew" is καταγγελλω which means "to proclaim." What is significant is that this in the midst of Paul presenting in written format the oral tradition he received about the Last Supper, and uses other sacrificial terms such as "remembrance" (αναμνησις [which, contrary to the claims of Catholic apologists, does not mean “memorial sacrifice”]) Catholic apologists have used to support the Mass as a sacrifice (1 Cor 11:23-25), and this would have been an ideal time to portray the Eucharist as a true sacrifice in contradistinction to the sacrifices to false gods surrounding the Corinthian church (cf. 1 Cor 10:19-21). See my discussion of 1 Cor 11:26 here.
Moreover, there is a Koine Greek term meaning "the shedding of blood" which is used in the New Testament, but not used in any of the accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper, the term αἱματεκχυσία. It is used in Heb 9:22 (emphasis added):
καὶ σχεδὸν ἐν αἵματι πάντα καθαρίζεται κατὰ τὸν νόμον καὶ χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσις
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission of sins.
If Christ was inaugurating a propitiatory sacrifice, as Roman Catholic dogma teaches, a more potent verb, σπενδομαι could be used by the authors of the Gospel texts in Matt 26/Luke 22/Mark 14, as it denotes a drink-offering/sacrifice commensurate with the contents of the chalice, upon the words of consecration, being the shed blood of Christ in Roman Catholic theology, but neither this, nor its noun form, σπονδη are used by the New Testament writers when discussing the Eucharist.
As for the term εκχυννομενον, it does not have the meaning that Roman Catholic apologists have attempted to foist upon it. Firstly, Christ's sacrifice had not yet taken place, so there was nothing to "re-present" until after the cross. To claim that Christ's body and blood were transubstantiated before the cross leads to a representation of a sacrifice still in the future. Furthermore, the same structure of εκχεω is used in Matt 23:35, speaking of the shed blood of the martyrs (emphasis added):
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed (εκχυννομενον) upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
The present passive participle of the verb is used here, but in reference to a past action, not a then-present action. Often participles, even when in the present tense, are not in reference to then-present events, but past events and even future events and used to heighten the reality of an event to the hearers/readers, as seen in the works of many competent Greek grammarians (e.g., Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997), 614; Lynne C. Boughton, "'Being shed for Many': Time-Sense and Consequences in the Synoptic Cup Citations," Tyndale Bulletin, 48.2 (1997), pp. 249-70.). To interpret Matthew 26:28 as supporting a then-shedding of Christ's blood at the Last Supper necessitates one to hold to a then-shedding of the blood of Abel and Zacharias when Christ spoke these words to his opponents. Only by engaging in special pleading can one claim that blood was being shed in Matt 26 but not Matt 23. In reality, Christ's words are easily exegeted as being about a then-future sacrifice he would offer, something commensurate with the entirety of biblical theology on the nature of the Eucharist.
Note the following from a Roman Catholic Greek grammarian which further refutes the claims 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:
Note the following from a Roman Catholic Greek grammarian which further refutes the claims 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.
If the Catholic Church's dogmatic understanding of the Mass and the Eucharist are true, it doesn't explain texts wherein New Testament-era believers were said to refrain from drinking blood. In Catholic theology, the wine substantially becomes Christ's blood, and at the time of the Jerusalem council, the Eucharist would have been celebrated for a number of years, and yet, Peter's comments betrays such an understanding (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25, etc; cf. Lev 17:11-12). If the New Testament church held to a change in the substance of the elements of the Lord's Supper, later defined as Transubstantiation in 1215, such comments are not commensurate with such.
Interestingly, Sungenis contradicts himself on pp.101-2 of Not by Bread Alone (2d ed.) when he critiques Evangelical Protestant apologist, Eric Svendsen (emphasis added):
Protestant E. Svendsen adds another objection: ". . . what about the Last Supper, which is upheld by Catholics as the original Mass? Was that a 'representing' of the sacrifice of the cross? how could it have been a re-presenting of something that had not yet occurred (Christ had not yet been sacrificed)?" (Evangelical Answers, p. 254, f. 4). The Last Supper is not a "re-presentation" not has Catholic theology ever taught such. Rather, it is a presentation of what was to come, or the prototype of the re-presentation. Obviously, Jesus first had to institute or originally present the Eucharist in the Last Supper before His Church could subsequently represent it in the sacrifice of the Mass . . . [the institution of the sacraments] depended on the efficacy of the cross for their institution. In fact, they could not be instituted unless the cross was anticipated. Hence, Jesus institutes the Last Supper in anticipation of the cross, as he makes plain in Lk 22:15, 20-22.
For those familiar with the theology of the Catholic Mass, this means that the shedding of blood in the Eucharistic Sacrifice would be on the New Testament side of the cross, so to speak, not the Old, the latter encompassing the time-frame of the Last Supper itself, so Christ could not have shed His blood (under the auspices of wine) at the Last Supper.
