Recently CNN Anderson Cooper 720 or whatever did a report on the states that were still allowing religious gatherings. This generated a semi-viral clip of a woman leaving church, which @RampCapitalLLC posted on the Twitters:
This begs the question (yes, I use the phrase that way) of what, exactly, a person might mean when they say they are “covered in Jesus’ blood.” I have some thoughts.
First of all, to my knowledge there is no Christian tradition in which one bathes in Jesus’ blood, literally, transubstantially or consubstantially. Unless we are talking about Brother Blood , but his church isn’t exactly orthodox. It is certainly possible that she was speaking metaphorically and spiritually here, as in being “washed” in the blood of the sacrificial Lamb of God. This is an ancient means of ritual purification that is given new meaning in Christ (see Heb. 9:22, for example) and is now analogous to baptism.
However, the lady in question spoke with a conviction that belies such figurative language. Also, “covered” is a state different than “washed,” no? Washed is the state of no longer being covered by something (sin). This can’t just be baptism, not even “baptism by blood” (martyrdom) as she seems very much alive. I think she is talking about real blood here, people!
This leaves the only thing in the Christian tradition that really deals with literal blood (for some denominations). Was this women referring to her stomach lining, which very well could have been covered in wine? For this to work, of course, we would have to assume that her church is wine-drinking and believes in tran- or consubstantiation, but something tells me that she is a teetotalling (at worship) Protestant. After all, she seems to be coming home on a Wednesday night, extra-credit time for Baptists or Baptist-adjacent groups.
But even ignoring this, what protection can the wine-cum-blood really offer against the plague? Assuming consubstantiation, the alcohol content would not nearly be high enough to disinfect (though the antioxidants are certainly beneficial!), and the healing properties of human plasma are certainly dubious. Heck, there can be a lot of nasty crap in that stuff these days. Even Christ’s blood has never been seriously considered for its physical healing or protection properties, though I suspect this could be due to misinformation from BIG BALM (looking at you, Gilead).
So we are back to the figurative meaning, I suppose. I’ll just assume that her blunt and serious tone was in response to the reporter’s rudeness, not confirmation of some new and disturbing sacrament or a complete misunderstanding of her church’s position on the Eucharist. Instead, she just means the blood of Jesus Christ is spiritually present through her baptism and continued faith and stubborn insistence in attending church. This must create a church-wide force-field that filters out submicroscopic particles. This is confirmed by the entirety of Christian HISTORY, which shows us that good Christians NEVER EVER got sick or infected others.
So don’t worry!