# As we take the Gospel to the Gentile peoples, should I refrain from eating blood?



## Pergamum

Is the prohibition against eating blood still applicable to those that take the Gospel out to the Gentiles? 

or 

was this prohibition given in the book of Acts as advice for that time so as to stress the underlying cultural principle that we are not to try to needlessly offend cultures to whom he minister to.

Are the British sinning grossly (besides just being gross) for eating blood pudding?


----------



## Theognome

Pergamum said:


> Is the prohibition against eating blood still applicable to those that take the Gospel out to the Gentiles?
> 
> or
> 
> was this prohibition given in the book of Acts as advice for that time so as to stress the underlying cultural principle that we are not to try to needlessly offend cultures to whom he minister to.
> 
> Are the British sinning grossly (besides just being gross) for eating blood pudding?



Prohibition to it? What is the reference, since it would be hard to 'rise, kill and eat' with such prohibition in place. Plus, the Levitical penalties were comparatively very minor for this infraction.

Theognome


----------



## Pergamum

Acts 15:

22Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 

23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. 

24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 

25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 

26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 

28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 

29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


----------



## py3ak

Plus, it antedates Moses. [KJV]Genesis 9:4[/KJV]


----------



## Oecolampadius

Back in my country, the Philippines, we have a favorite dish that is made from pig's blood. It is called "dinuguan" which is derived from "dugo" (blood).

When I was studying at the bible institute that my former denomination was associated with, we investigated this very matter under the guidance of a pastor-instructor. Our instructor concluded the matter by declaring that it is no longer a sin to eat "dinuguan" because of what God has instructed to Peter in Acts 10:13-15.

However, I later came to doubt that instructor's judgment for, in another matter, he concluded that it is sinful to drink alcohol for, he said, the wine that Paul was referring to in passages like 1 Tim. 5:23 was hardly alcoholic because the wine back then simply meant the juice of grapes (grape juice!). 

The denomination that I formerly belonged to was fundamentalist baptist with a dispensationalist flavor. in my opinion, it was his fundamentalism which caused him to make that judgment concerning the wine. And so, I wonder whether it was his dispensationalism that caused him to tell his students then that the commandment given to Noah in Gen. 9:4 is no longer binding on NT believers.

When I joined the OPC, I consulted with my current pastor about this and he told me that it is still binding. I have met other reformed believers who disagree. To be honest, I really still don't know whether it's binding or not. Yet, since I'm in doubt, I have decided never to eat that dish again or anything that consists of blood.

BTW, a friend of mine told me that steaks that are cooked rare are not red because they still have blood on them. He told me that they put red dye on the steaks which make them look bloody.


----------



## Pergamum

How does this all agreeor disagree with Paul's words about meats and drinks?

-----Added 4/29/2009 at 09:46:34 EST-----

Can we eat things strangled today, and things offered to idols?


----------



## chbrooking

Perhaps I'm just choosing not to limit the scope of "whatever is set before you" in 1 Co. 10:27, but I like to see the cow on my plate bleed.


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, what implications does this have for folks who like their steak rare.

Also, did I sin when I strangled chickens last month for a meal?


----------



## TimV

> Yes, what implications does this have for folks who like their steak rare.



None at all, and the Bible interprets itself on this one. When you kill a cow or sheep, you let it bleed on the ground. Several of us here on the board have done it. Even if you shoot it first, you run over and cut it's throat and let it bleed ON THE GROUND, rather than catch it in a cup and eat it, as is done in many countries.

Abraham ate his steaks and chops with the same juices that you all like.


----------



## Pergamum

But then the issue is the amount of blood and not whether we can eat blood itself.

What aree those references for letting animals bleed on the ground?

Also, do I have to kill my chickens by cutting now instead of strangling? Cutting is messier.


----------



## TimV

> But then the issue is the amount of blood and not whether we can eat blood itself.



Only if you're looking for a contradiction in the Bible. You (on second though you're probably typing fast and don't realize it) seem to be saying "If one single red blood cell is still in the cow after I butcher it according to Biblical law, then Biblical law is stupid and inconsistent, since even a fool knows that you can't get every single red blood cell out of a cow by cutting it's throat".

But there is a simpler explanation. That people in that part of the world, as they do in so many places today, take the blood that spurts out of a sheep, goat or cow and use it for food rather than "let it fall to the ground" as Scripture dictates.


----------



## Oecolampadius

TimV said:


> But there is a simpler explanation. That people in that part of the world, as they do in so many places today, take the blood that spurts out of a sheep, goat or cow and use it for food rather than "let it fall to the ground" as Scripture dictates.



That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you guys earlier:



Chippy said:


> Back in my country, the Philippines, we have a favorite dish that is made from pig's blood. It is called "dinuguan" which is derived from "dugo" (blood).



In my country, when they slaughter a pig, they sometimes collect the blood when they let the pig bleed out. This blood is then cooked into a dish that is called "dinuguan" which I, as a reformed believer, no longer eat.


----------



## Berean

Chippy said:


> Back in my country, the Philippines, we have a favorite dish that is made from *pig's blood*. It is called "dinuguan" which is derived from "dugo" (blood).



Well, I sure don't need any scriptural admonition to not eat THAT!


----------



## py3ak

In the south of Mexico they will drink blood straight - from cows and horses at any rate. I had a friend who said it was a little hard to keep down at first.


----------



## OPC'n

My pastor doesn't see anything wrong with eating say bloody steak. Never asked about blood pudding. I think he would outlaw it just because that is just disgusting


----------



## Oecolampadius

TranZ4MR said:


> My pastor doesn't see anything wrong with eating say bloody steak.



So, nobody thinks that what my friend said is true?



Chippy said:


> BTW, a friend of mine told me that steaks that are cooked rare are not red because they still have blood on them. He told me that they put red dye on the steaks which make them look bloody.


----------



## Athaleyah

Acts 15:20 seems to me to apply to all gentile believers, not just missionaries.

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 
Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 

With that and Genesis 9:4, it is enough for me not to do it. Blood has never been considered a food for people in the Bible, so I don't think it was made acceptable by Acts 11:5-10 (Peter's Vision). For what its worth, I wouldn't have anything to do with an object that had been related to idol worship either. In Acts 15:20 it says "things" not "food." Food sacrificed to idols was made a matter of conscience in 1st Corinthians.

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one." 
1Co 8:7 However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 
1Co 8:8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 

I hope I am making sense. It makes sense to me anyway.


----------



## OPC'n

Chippy said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> My pastor doesn't see anything wrong with eating say bloody steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, nobody thinks that what my friend said is true?
> 
> 
> 
> Chippy said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, a friend of mine told me that steaks that are cooked rare are not red because they still have blood on them. He told me that they put red dye on the steaks which make them look bloody.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No, I don't believe that because I cook mine sort of bloody at home and when I get the same thing at a restaurant it tastes and looks the same.


----------



## Athaleyah

Chippy said:


> So, nobody thinks that what my friend said is true?
> 
> 
> 
> Chippy said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, a friend of mine told me that steaks that are cooked rare are not red because they still have blood on them. He told me that they put red dye on the steaks which make them look bloody.
Click to expand...


I know that it is true that butchers dye beef red. If they didn't it would be brownish colored. I know it was the case in the past that the dye was made from grapes. I don't know if it is still that way or not.

If there is blood in steak, I don't think it is a significant amount. And as TimV said, it is important that the blood is drained out of the animal when it is slaughtered, not consumed. A little bit of blood left in the steak doesn't matter.


----------



## Spinningplates2

When you see red on your plate (or on the rshelf of your refrigarator) that is protein breaking down, it is not blood. The blood is draind when it is butchered and the meat does not hold on to any as a sponge. So eat your rare meat with no fear.


----------



## OPC'n

Ok, so I'm wrong! What's new!  So now I can really eat it medium rare without thinking about the "blood". I like it medium rare because of the flavor and it seems more tender....wasn't ever big on eating blood! Cool, I'm eating red dye!

-----Added 4/30/2009 at 02:01:35 EST-----



TranZ4MR said:


> Chippy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> My pastor doesn't see anything wrong with eating say bloody steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, nobody thinks that what my friend said is true?
> 
> 
> 
> Chippy said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, a friend of mine told me that steaks that are cooked rare are not red because they still have blood on them. He told me that they put red dye on the steaks which make them look bloody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't believe that because I cook mine sort of bloody at home and when I get the same thing at a restaurant it tastes and looks the same.
Click to expand...


Hahahaha! Big




. I thought you were asking if cooks at restaurants put dye in the meat so that they could say it was rare and avoid a lawsuit if someone got E coli! Yahooooooo! Wouldn't ya like to live in my head for a few moments? You really wouldn't need all that alcohol!


----------



## Pergamum

Hmmm...I've got lots to think about over this thread.

Can I strangle chickens or must I cut their heads off?


----------



## OPC'n

Pergamum said:


> Hmmm...I've got lots to think about over this thread.
> 
> Can I strangle chickens or must I cut their heads off?



I think you should cut off their heads then you can be entertained by their dance!


----------



## A.J.

Chippy said:


> When I joined the OPC, I consulted with my current pastor about this and he told me that it is still binding. I have met other reformed believers who disagree. To be honest, I really still don't know whether it's binding or not. Yet, since I'm in doubt, I have decided never to eat that dish again or anything that consists of blood.



I haven't eaten this Filipino dish ("dinuguan" = something from which blood was taken) for a long time because of the same concern. I'm still not sure whether its sinful for us to eat blood. 

Can any of the ministers in the PB help us out here? Is it sinful for us to eat blood?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I would refrain based upon the scriptures. 

As Ruben stated the Genesis passage indicates this is a pre Mosaic command.


> But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
> (Gen 9:4)





> And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
> (Lev 17:10)
> 
> 
> For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
> (Lev 17:11)
> 
> Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
> (Lev 17:12)
> 
> And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
> (Lev 17:13)
> 
> For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
> (Lev 17:14)





> Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat them: the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike.
> (Deu 12:22)
> 
> Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.
> (Deu 12:23)
> 
> Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water.
> (Deu 12:24)



If I had any incling or unclearness concerning a topic I would do the safe thing and abide by the clearest teaching to be on the safe side.


----------



## sastark

Is this thread making anyone else hungry for a nice, juicy steak or is it just me?


----------



## Skyler

I didn't realize anyone besides Klingons ate blood pudding. It's called "Rokeg".


----------



## LawrenceU

I do think that the admonition to refrain from eating blood is still in effect. But, it does not mean that rare meat is unfit. As Tim V mentioned it refers to the practice of intentionally catching the blood and eating it. 

When an animal is slaughtered is should be bled, even if it is a chicken who has been killed by wringing its neck. It helps the meat to say fresh longer. When I kill chickens I wring their necks and the remove the head and hang them. They will bleed out. The just don't flop around all over the place and get bruised.

I don't know about butchers dying meat. I've slaughtered cattle and the meat is still red. And, yes, we bled them out by hanging.


----------



## OPC'n

LawrenceU said:


> I do think that the admonition to refrain from eating blood is still in effect. But, it does not mean that rare meat is unfit. As Tim V mentioned it refers to the practice of intentionally catching the blood and eating it.
> 
> When an animal is slaughtered is should be bled, even if it is a chicken who has been killed by wringing its neck. It helps the meat to say fresh longer. When I kill chickens I wring their necks and the remove the head and hang them. They will bleed out. The just don't flop around all over the place and get bruised.
> 
> I don't know about butchers dying meat. I've slaughtered cattle and the meat is still red. And, yes, we bled them out by hanging.



Ha! So I am right! I wish you people would make up your minds as to whether I am or not!


----------



## tcalbrecht

Chippy said:


> BTW, a friend of mine told me that steaks that are cooked rare are not red because they still have blood on them. He told me that they put red dye on the steaks which make them look bloody.




The red in red meats comes from myoglobin, which is related to but different from hemoglobin in blood. Myoglobin is used to carry oxygen through muscle tissue.

So, eating raw/rare meat is not akin to eating blood.


----------



## VictorBravo

LawrenceU said:


> I don't know about butchers dying meat. I've slaughtered cattle and the meat is still red. And, yes, we bled them out by hanging.



Same here. I think people who dye meat probably have old meat they are passing off. I grew up on home-slaughtered beef--it was red meat. If you leave it out for a couple of weeks, it gradually turns brownish. 

I hadn't heard red dye in meat before, but a quick google search shows that it indeed is happening.


----------



## Pergamum

So, we cannot strangle our animals to eat them? 

This is a lot cleaner when killing chickens. 

Do I need to repent of my last chickens I killed then? It is hard to feel convicted of sin over the technique of butchering an animal.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pergamum said:


> So, we cannot strangle our animals to eat them?
> 
> This is a lot cleaner when killing chickens.
> 
> Do I need to repent of my last chickens I killed then? It is hard to feel convicted of sin over the technique of butchering an animal.



I think that if you hold the chicken's feet, put good stick under one foot and then put the chickens neck under the stick and then put then step on the stick with your other foot and then rip the chicken's head off while holding onto the feet, the blood comes out, nicely. Pretty clean. And since you were holding the feet you don't have to chase the animal around the yard.


----------



## Pergamum

Chasing the headless chicken around the yard is part of the fun though!


----------



## SolaScriptura

A good tactic for killing rabbits is to hold it by the back feet and stroke its fur from tail to head... it'll lull the rabbit into a very calm relaxed state. When it lowers it's head in relaxation, give a strong "karate chop" to the back of it's neck. That'll kill it instantly. And then you can pretty much rip the skin right off the tasty creature.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Joshua said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good tactic for killing rabbits is to hold it by the back feet and stroke its fur from tail to head... it'll lull the rabbit into a very calm relaxed state. When it lowers it's head in relaxation, give a strong "karate chop" to the back of it's neck. That'll kill it instantly. And then you can pretty much rip the skin right off the tasty creature.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never had Rabbit. Is it better than squirrel?
Click to expand...


I think so.


----------



## ewenlin

as a city person my entire life, i must say it is pretty disturbing reading this thread.. i mean i was getting pretty hungry at all the steak talk... but the headless chicken running around in a yard with pergs chasing after it... 

pergs you're talking about killing/eating whilst in the states?


----------



## LawrenceU

Pergamum said:


> So, we cannot strangle our animals to eat them?
> 
> This is a lot cleaner when killing chickens.
> 
> Do I need to repent of my last chickens I killed then? It is hard to feel convicted of sin over the technique of butchering an animal.



Hey, Pergy. An easy way to kill a chicken and then bleed it is to grab both feet in one hand, your non-dominant hand. Then put its head between your first and second fingers - head going in toward the palm. Put your thumb under the chicken's head right at the base of beak. Stretch out the bird while pushing up with the thumb. It will cleanly break the spinal cord. He may flap a couple of times. Then hang him and decapitate. It will bleed right out. If you do it right the heart will still beat long enough to pump him out. It is really easier than it sounds. A big benefit is that the meat does not get bruised from a chicken running around with no head.


----------



## Berean

> It will cleanly break the spinal cord. He may flap a couple of times. Then hang him and decapitate. It will bleed right out. If you do it right the heart will still beat long enough to pump him out. It is really easier than it sounds.



The things you can learn on the PB. I'd never a guessed...


----------



## LawrenceU

Berean said:


> It will cleanly break the spinal cord. He may flap a couple of times. Then hang him and decapitate. It will bleed right out. If you do it right the heart will still beat long enough to pump him out. It is really easier than it sounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The things you can learn on the PB. I'd never a guessed...
Click to expand...


I'm a firm believer in keeping folks rooted in reality  Way too many people think their just shows up on little styrofoam trays all wrapped up from a meat factory or something.


----------



## Reluctantly Reforming

So how about the ol' soda bottle trick? As I understand it, you take a 2l plastic soda bottle, cut away the neck, cut away the bottom end, and then afix it upside down to something solid like a fence post. Grab your chicken and stuff it in the bottle so its head sticks out the neck hole. Lop off the chicken's head, and it's nicely held in place while bleeding out.

Or so I have read. (City guy) Does anyone recommend this?


----------



## LawrenceU

Reluctantly Reforming said:


> So how about the ol' soda bottle trick? As I understand it, you take a 2l plastic soda bottle, cut away the neck, cut away the bottom end, and then afix it upside down to something solid like a fence post. Grab your chicken and stuff it in the bottle so its head sticks out the neck hole. Lop off the chicken's head, and it's nicely held in place while bleeding out.
> 
> Or so I have read. (City guy) Does anyone recommend this?



That is pretty similar to what some slaughterhouses use. I've never tried it. A three litre might be better, especially if you are doing roasting hens. They are pleasantly plump.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> BTW, a friend of mine told me that steaks that are cooked rare are not red because they still have blood on them. He told me that they put red dye on the steaks which make them look bloody.



I've served steaks for many years. I've never heard of red dye being put into the meat.


----------



## Pergamum

Why were these 3 things written down in the letter that the church in Jeruslame circulated: (1) things strangled, (2) blood, and (3) fornication.

Was it because those were particular cultural areas of offense?

Why was not the Sabbath mentioned, since the Gentiles, too, were notorious Sabbath breakers?

-----Added 5/13/2009 at 07:28:50 EST-----

I'll admit, I'm having a hard time being convinced that God cares how I butcher my chickens.


I think there is a missiological principle at stake - i.e., not to be a needless cultural offense when the Gospel crosses culture.

-----Added 5/13/2009 at 07:47:34 EST-----

The four prohibitions in Acts occur in Acts 15:20; 15:29; and 21:25 I think.

These prohibtions also include food offered to idols, which Paul clearly says is okay to eat (IF it does not cause someone to stumble). 

Why these prohibitions and not others? Because these were guidences designed to help the cross-cultural spread of the faith and not needlessly offend either new believers who were Gentile or the Jews, so that table fellowship could occur within the early church. The whole thrust of the prohibitions seem primarily about securing table fellowship. Table fellowship and purity were linked together and this issue was vital to the spread of the faith.

-----Added 5/13/2009 at 08:11:30 EST-----

Matthew Henry supports my point about not giving offense:

_From things strangled, and from blood, which, though not evil in themselves, as the other two, nor designed to be always abstained from as those were, had been forbidden by the precepts of Noah (Gen_9:4.), before the giving of the law of Moses; and the Jews had a great dislike to them, and to all those that took a liberty to use them; and therefore, to avoid giving offence, let the Gentile converts abridge themselves of their liberty herein, 1Co_8:9, 1Co_8:13. Thus we must become all things to all men._


----------



## Peairtach

I don't believe the laws on not eating blood apply now, unless they are going to offend someone in the process of doing evangelism.

These laws were primarily ceremonial and given to teach the Jews respect for the blood, which represented the soul of the animal sacrifices, and to teach them that they were not so intimately involved with the sacrifice as to ingest its soul. They are therefore part of the ceremonial law.

It was intimated that they were to be abolished by Our Lord, when He said in John 6, that believers were to eat His flesh and drink His blood. How can we drink His blood if the law against drinking blood still stands? The Jews knew what it was to eat the flesh of a sacrifice but not to drink its blood. Christ was intimating that the relationship of believers to Him would be more intimate than that of the priests in Old Covenant Israel to the typical sacrifices. Believers feed on Christ's body(spiritually) and drink His blood (spiritually). They receive both nourishment and life from Christ and He indwells them by His Spirit and strenthens them with fresh supplies of His Spirit.

I believe the rule against eating non-kosher meat in Acts 15 was given so as not to offend Jews and Jewish proselytes and also converts from Judaism. Christians weren't to use their liberty in an uncharitable way especially at a time when it might be misunderstood. Colossians 2:20-22 is the normal standard for Christians in their New Covenant liberty.This does not exclude the fact that we should avoid unecessary cruelty to animals, and not unecessarily offend a culture's taste or decency, and also take appropriate care of our health. But our meat doesn't have to be kosher. This is a symbol of our liberty in Christ.

The law on not eating blood was one of the Noahide laws which were followed even by Gentile "Godfearers" like Cornelius the Centurion. These were not full Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselyte

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfearers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws


The Gentile converts may have lacked understanding as to how offensive their behaviour was to their Jewish brothers. They also may not have taken on board the full rigours of the detailed injunctions against various forms of sexual immorality in God's law, if they were living in very promiscuous societies. 



Black pudding (or blood pudding, as you call it) is delicious with fried egg, bacon, baked beans, toast and butter and a cup of tea. It's sometimes nice to have a bigger breakfast.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

How is that we can say that eating blood is now OK but not fornication? Is it because fornication is spoken of elsewhere and in other contexts? Not arguing for fornication, but not sure how we can say that eating blood is OK.
Back in the day in the old country I ate black pudding. I apologize to any Scotophile but it really is gross. However, I never met any Christians who objected on religious grounds to eating it. 
Centuries ago poor crofters in the Highlands would bleed the family cow because that was all they had. I think this is the origin of black pudding.


----------



## Pergamum

21st Century Calvinist said:


> How is that we can say that eating blood is now OK but not fornication? Is it because fornication is spoken of elsewhere and in other contexts? Not arguing for fornication, but not sure how we can say that eating blood is OK.
> Back in the day in the old country I ate black pudding. I apologize to any Scotophile but it really is gross. However, I never met any Christians who objected on religious grounds to eating it.
> Centuries ago poor crofters in the Highlands would bleed the family cow because that was all they had. I think this is the origin of black pudding.



Do you feel like you were sinning by eating a type of pudding?


----------



## TimV

> It was intimated that they were to be abolished by Our Lord, when He said in John 6, that believers were to eat His flesh and drink His blood. How can we drink His blood if the law against drinking blood still stands?



Not that it personally affects me how anyone here kills their food, but the above is a bit weak. Christ didn't break any laws of God, and when He said the above it was before His death and resurrection. That line of reason would be like excusing homosexuality by the analogy of men being part of the bride of Christ.


----------



## LawrenceU

A point that is often overlooked in this discussion is that table fellowship was not only very important, but obviously much more a meal rather than a piece of unleavened bread and a bit of wine. If that is what was implied then the argument would have been moot.


----------



## Peairtach

21st Century Calvinist said:


> How is that we can say that eating blood is now OK but not fornication? Is it because fornication is spoken of elsewhere and in other contexts?



Yes. We have to look at the purpose of the law. I agree that it is important to consider if a law that was intimated before Moses has some creational or foundational import, but I believe the law against eating blood was primarily ceremonial.

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 
(Genesis 9:4)

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.(Leviticus 17:11-12)

God states clearly in this passage in Leviticus that people weren't to eat blood in the OT was because it made atonement for the soul. It pointed forward to Christ pouring out His soul in death. It is thus part of the ceremonial law. 

The Apostles in Acts 15 mentioned this for expediency and in order to avoid giving unecessary offence to Jews, proselytes and converted Jews. These were the main ways in which the new Christians were abusing their liberty (going beyond their liberty in the case of fornication) and giving offense.

Colossians 2:20-22 applies now such misunderstanding has been removed. Also the inspired words of Paul that all things are lawful but not all things are expedient.

*Quote from Tim V*
_Christ didn't break any laws of God, and when He said the above it was before His death and resurrection._

No He didn't. But He did intimate that some were passing away. E.g. Jesus said to the woman of Samaria that the special place of Jerusalem was passing away. The disciples were only to truly understand what eating Christ's body and drinking His blood was _after_ His sacrifice on Calvary's Cross, and the virtual and spiritual sacrificial meal in symbols of the Lord's Supper was not instituted until the eve of Calvary, in anticipation of the work which was to be immediately fulfilled.


----------



## Pergamum

Since you all don't agree with me here, here's some statements which agree with my assessment from four major commentaries, including an emeritus professor at RTS:


FIRST:

Richard N. Longenecker from the recently published Expositor's BibleCommentary, revised:

_These prohibitions have often been viewed as a compromise between two warring parties that in effect nullified James's earlier words andmade the decision of the Jerusalem Council unacceptable to Paul. In reality, however, they are to be seen not as dealing with the central issue of the council but as meeting certain practical concerns--i.e., not as primarily theological in nature but more sociological. Seen in this light, they were meant not as divine ordinances for acceptance before God but as concessions to the scruples of others for the sake of harmony within the church and the continuance of the Jewish-Christian mission. So James adds the rationale of v. 21: "For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath"--that is to say, since Jewishcommunities are to be found in every city, their scruples are to be respected by Gentile believers._


SECOND:

F. F. Bruce:

_In most of the churches Gentile believers had to live alongside Jewish believers, who had been brought up to observe various food-laws and to avoid intercourse with Gentiles as far as possible. While there was no more question of requiring the Gentiles to submit to the ceremonial law, they would do well to behave considerately to their "weaker brethren" of Jewish birth, not all of whom could be expected immediately to acquire such an emancipated outlook on food-laws and the like as Peter and Paul. Therefore, without compromising the Gentiles' Christian liberty, James gave it as his considered opinion that they should be asked to respect their Jewish brethren's scruples by avoiding meat which had idolatrous associations or from which the blood had not been properly drained, and by conforming to the high Jewish code of relations between sexes instead of being content with the lower pagan standards to which they have been accustomed. This would smooth the path of social and table fellowship between Christians of Jewish and Gentile birth._


THIRD:

Darrell L. Bock: (after he associates all of the the prohibitions with cultic rituals)

_In all likelihood, this is a request to be faithful to the one true
God, to be moral in worship, and to have sensitivity to issues of
unclean animals and eating strangled animals without the draining of
blood, as Lev. 17:13-14 and 18:6-30 suggest. The limitations are
probably to keep relations from becoming strained in a mixed community
of Jews and Gentiles as well as to warn about association with
idolatry. It is quite likely that the prohibition relates especially
to attending pagan temples and what goes with them_


FOURTH:

Simon J. Kistemaker, Emeritus Professor of New Testament at RTS:

_James knows that the Judaizers will not be satisfied with a negative
exhortation. Hence he suggests four recommendations that are
applicable to Gentile Christians who associate with Jewish Christians,
especially those who live in dispersion. He seeks to promote unity
among believers of both Jewish and Gentile backgrounds. James wants
the Christians to live together in wholesome relationships. He
desires that they observe certain prescribed rules which preclude any
offense arising from table fellowship or social contracts. James
proposes that the council must write a letter to the Gentile
Christians and tell them what they must do._


----------



## TimV

> Yes. We have to look at the purpose of the law. I agree that it is important to consider if a law that was intimated before Moses has some creational or foundational import, but I believe the law against eating blood was primarily ceremonial.



How would this fit into the Historical Redemptive framework?

a) This law points only to Christ pouring out His soul at death

b) This law is primarily another common sense health law like burying your feces.

c) This law primarily is spiritual in nature, like not eating road kill was to illustrate the principle of separating God's people from the heathen, but the spiritual aspect is well illustrated by its common sense health application.


----------



## Pergamum

Mmmmm...road kill!


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

Pergamum said:


> 21st Century Calvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that we can say that eating blood is now OK but not fornication? Is it because fornication is spoken of elsewhere and in other contexts? Not arguing for fornication, but not sure how we can say that eating blood is OK.
> Back in the day in the old country I ate black pudding. I apologize to any Scotophile but it really is gross. However, I never met any Christians who objected on religious grounds to eating it.
> Centuries ago poor crofters in the Highlands would bleed the family cow because that was all they had. I think this is the origin of black pudding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel like you were sinning by eating a type of pudding?
Click to expand...


No, not sinning, just committing a crime against taste.


----------



## Augusta

Berean said:


> It will cleanly break the spinal cord. He may flap a couple of times. Then hang him and decapitate. It will bleed right out. If you do it right the heart will still beat long enough to pump him out. It is really easier than it sounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The things you can learn on the PB. I'd never a guessed...
Click to expand...


I learned from Lawrence how to skin a squirrel.


----------



## Peairtach

TimV said:


> It was intimated that they were to be abolished by Our Lord, when He said in John 6, that believers were to eat His flesh and drink His blood. How can we drink His blood if the law against drinking blood still stands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that it personally affects me how anyone here kills their food, but the above is a bit weak. Christ didn't break any laws of God, and when He said the above it was before His death and resurrection. That line of reason would be like excusing homosexuality by the analogy of men being part of the bride of Christ.
Click to expand...


Yes. We have to look at all these things. Sometimes there is commonsense health teaching in laws that are expressed in ceremonial terms e.g. the law on burying excrement.

As far as I'm aware the food laws are given for ceremonial purposes rather than health, although the two may coincide because many of the unclean animals e.g. the pig were associated with filth. But as far as I am aware pigs, shellfish and meat with blood in it do no harm if they are reared and prepared properly.

If God was really giving these instructions for health would he not have told the Israelites how to prepare meat properly - including even beef - how to be hygienic, and also given them a list of dangerous plants?

_I_ don't find eating a black pudding disgusting but if someone ate a cup of blood I would. Charity leads us not to disgust people. There are also considerations of cruelty - taking blood/cutting meat from a living animal would be wrong. But Leviticus 17:11-12 gives us the purpose of this law.


----------



## Berean

Augusta said:


> I learned from Lawrence how to skin a squirrel.



Did you eat it?


----------

