Eating blood?

Status
Not open for further replies.
PointyHaired Calvinist

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Junior
To follow up a recent question - are Christians still to avoid eating blood? Acts 15 seems to be pretty straightforward as that (plus strangled animals) are the only food restrictions for Gentile believers.
 
Archibald Hall considers the question in his excellent book on Reformed worship (a book I've worked on and which RHB plans to publish in the near future). He considers the various arguments against eating blood as well as some rebuttals.
 

Attachments

Yes, it is still a prohibition. Acts 15 cannot be any clearer. People can spend 15 pages explaining it away, but it reminds me of the Garden, i.e. I gave you tons of food, but you just had to have the one I said you couldnt...
 
I'm served blood sausage here in South America on occasion and I don't touch it. But because I find it repulsive, not because I believe it's immoral.
Paul's words in Romans 14:20 ("All things indeed are clean") would seem to imply that it actually is permitted. Thus, the prohibition in Acts would be to avoid scandalizing the Jews, not because of immorality.
 
The commandment not to eat blood was not part of the Mosaic economy, and not a civil or ceremonial law. The command was given to Noah at the time that the eating of meat was permitted and along with the commandment to put any man to death that sheds the blood of man.

I don't see any way to get around this.
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
The commandment not to eat blood was not part of the Mosaic economy, and not a civil or ceremonial law. The command was given to Noah at the time that the eating of meat was permitted and along with the commandment to put any man to death that sheds the blood of man.

I don't see any way to get around this.
Click to expand...
This has been my understanding as well.
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
The commandment not to eat blood was not part of the Mosaic economy, and not a civil or ceremonial law. The command was given to Noah at the time that the eating of meat was permitted and along with the commandment to put any man to death that sheds the blood of man.

I don't see any way to get around this.
Click to expand...
But it was part of the Mosaic economy. Deut. 12:23 reads "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."
 
Charles Johnson said:
But it was part of the Mosaic economy. Deut. 12:23 reads "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."
Click to expand...

Playing Devil's advocate here, but I think he is saying that it predated the Mosaic economy and was reaffirmed in Acts 15.
 
RamistThomist said:
Playing Devil's advocate here, but I think he is saying that it predated the Mosaic economy and was reaffirmed in Acts 15.
Click to expand...
But in Acts 15 there is clearly an appeal to the Mosaic and not anything that predated it: "...that we trouble not them of the Gentiles that are turned to God, but that we send unto them, that they abstain themselves from filthiness of idols, and fornication, and that is strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, seeing he is read in the Synagogues every Sabbath." (vv.19-21)

I always thought this was just for that specific generation - or until the Temple was destroyed. In other words, the early Church did not want the Gentile converts to offend the Jews to whom they were witnessing to and trying to bring in to the Kingdom.

I would hate to be wrong and give up my black pudding.
 
Last edited:
So eating rare steak is a sin. What temperature must it be to be acceptable to christians? There's gotta be one, blood is subjective (is that where Christian liberty comes in..,....). The point being obviously this is ceremonial and therefore abrogated. Do what you want to to do but not at the offense of a fellow believer.
 
jwright82 said:
So eating rare steak is a sin. What temperature must it be to be acceptable to christians? There's gotta be one, blood is subjective (is that where Christian liberty comes in..,....). The point being obviously this is ceremonial and therefore abrogated.
Click to expand...
A rare steak does not have blood in it - see here for an explanation. When an animal is killed to be eaten, it is immediately and completely bled out.

This is probably why there is a prohibition in the Mosaic economy (and in Acts 15) against "strangled meat" - the blood would have remained in the animal (like many Mosaic prohibitions, this was a provision for health as well as visible separation from unbelievers).
Do what you want to to do but not at the offense of a fellow believer.
Click to expand...
I would be offended if in a non-emergency situation you strangled an animal to eat it (which is done in some cultures but I believe is morally unjustifiable).
 
RamistThomist said:
Playing Devil's advocate here, but I think he is saying that it predated the Mosaic economy and was reaffirmed in Acts 15.
Click to expand...
Assuming he is saying it predates the Mosaic economy, that's certainly true, but many ceremonial laws do, no just this one.
For example, circumcision (Gen. 17), sacrifices (Gen. 4, 10, etc), the law that a priest's daughter that fornicates must be burned (Gen. 38:24, Lev. 21:9), the use of altars, the tradition that Jews do not eat the tendon that shriveled in Jacob's leg, the distinction between clean and unclean animals, etc.
 
Charles Johnson said:
Assuming he is saying it predates the Mosaic economy, that's certainly true, but many ceremonial laws do, no just this one.
For example, circumcision (Gen. 17), sacrifices (Gen. 4, 10, etc), the law that a priest's daughter that fornicates must be burned (Gen. 38:24, Lev. 21:9), the use of altars, the tradition that Jews do not eat the tendon that shriveled in Jacob's leg, the distinction between clean and unclean animals, etc.
Click to expand...

Are any of those things "universal" laws that applied to everyone, like the commandment to Noah?

Where do we hear that this restriction against blood has been abrogated?
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
Are any of those things "universal" laws that applied to everyone, like the commandment to Noah?

Where do we hear that this restriction against blood has been abrogated?
Click to expand...
Saying it's meant to apply to everyone is begging the question.

I'm of the opinion that the prohibition against blood has been abrogated by the same laws that abrogated all dietary laws (almost none of which have been repealed specifically and by name). ("All things are clean...")
 
If the law against consuming blood is moral, how does it violate the summary of the moral law, "love the Lord your God... and your neighbor"?
Which of the ten commandments does it violate?
 
Charles Johnson said:
If the law against consuming blood is moral, how does it violate the summary of the moral law, "love the Lord your God... and your neighbor"?
Which of the ten commandments does it violate?
Click to expand...
And if it is moral, wouldn't it apply to the gentiles as well? But, according to Deut. 14:21 the Israelites were allowed to sell meat presumably with blood.
 
Northern Crofter said:
A rare steak does not have blood in it - see here for an explanation. When an animal is killed to be eaten, it is immediately and completely bled out.

This is probably why there is a prohibition in the Mosaic economy (and in Acts 15) against "strangled meat" - the blood would have remained in the animal (like many Mosaic prohibitions, this was a provision for health as well as visible separation from unbelievers).

I would be offended if in a non-emergency situation you strangled an animal to eat it (which is done in some cultures but I believe is morally unjustifiable).
Click to expand...
Well steaks aside, I don't know why you'd strangle an animal in our culture. But I've never drained a deer or pig before cooking it. It seems ceremonial to me hence the question of temperature. A bullet seems far more humane. Acts 15 is about antinomianism vs offending a fellow believer.
 
Charles Johnson said:
Saying it's meant to apply to everyone is begging the question.
Click to expand...

Really? I don't know that it is. The command was given right alongside the permission to eat meat (which, as far as I can tell, applies to everyone) and the command to put death a manslayer (which, as far as I can tell, applies to everyone).

Charles Johnson said:
I'm of the opinion that the prohibition against blood has been abrogated by the same laws that abrogated all dietary laws (almost none of which have been repealed specifically and by name). ("All things are clean...")
Click to expand...

I don't know that blood was ever prohibited because it was unclean, but rather it seems it was because it contained the very life of the animal and needed to be treated a certain way. I don't think "don't eat blood" was the same kind of thing as "don't eat unclean meats". I agree that what was "unclean" was made "clean", but as I said, blood doesn't seem to fit that category.
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
Really? I don't know that it is. The command was given right alongside the permission to eat meat (which, as far as I can tell, applies to everyone) and the command to put death a manslayer (which, as far as I can tell, applies to everyone).
Click to expand...
Do you mean it applied to everyone in Noah's day?
I would grant that, but apparently the requirement to sacrifice also applied to everyone in Noah's day, and in the days of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, etc (unless we think that the worship of God was entirely voluntary or optional). So universality at one moment in history can't supply a strong argument for universality in all ages.
 
jwright82 said:
Well steaks aside, I don't know why you'd strangle an animal in our culture. But I've never drained a deer or pig before cooking it. It seems ceremonial to me hence the question of temperature. A bullet seems far more humane. Acts 15 is about antinomianism vs offending a fellow believer.
Click to expand...
It seems like you misunderstand the process and purpose of draining blood? Perhaps you don't drain the blood from animals you kill, but that means you're eating meat with the blood no matter how long you cook it. Heat does not remove blood; draining does. The red liquid removed by the cooking process isn't blood; it's mostly water colored red by myoglobin. So the presence of blood is in no way subjective; either there is blood, or there isn't. Meat that is prepared for the purpose of sale is almost always going to have come from a drained animal, partly because most people just don't prefer the taste of blood, but also because blood is a breeding ground for bacteria and will significantly reduce the shelf life of the meat. And there's no comparison with a bullet because the animal is killed before the blood is drained.

I'm not arguing one way or the other on whether or not it's acceptable to consume blood, just correcting what seems to be a misunderstanding that's leading you to trivialize the arguments made against it.
 
ReformedChristian said:
I wrote a bit on this topic that might be helpful https://christophercunningham.subst...us-1712?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Click to expand...
I see in your article and agree with the application to understanding Acts 15: "the forbidding of blood is in connection to idols."

As stated above, I do not believe that Acts 15 can be viewed as a permanent command. If it is, it is a new one, not a continuation of Mosaic law as we see things like Deuteronomy 14.21 in the Mosaic: "Ye shall eat of nothing that *dieth alone, but thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it: or thou mayest sell it unto a stranger: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God...." (*the note here in the Geneva is: "Because their blood was not shed, but remaineth in them.") So the Israelites could not eat an animal they did not kill and drain the blood from, but they could sell it to a Gentile. Thus there was no universal moral prohibition against eating meat with the blood in it. As the Larger Catechism puts it: "...what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others." (Question 99.7) If it was a moral commandment, it would need to be consistent for all people in all ages. Instead, like the Mosaic law, the prohibitions in Acts 15 were for a particular purpose limited to a particular dispensation - in this case, I would argue, that time of the Apostles before the destruction of the Temple when the call was going out to ethnic Israel to turn to Christ or face destruction (this does, of course, hinge on one's interpretation of Matthew 24). The Apostles wanted no stumbling block placed in front of Jew (Acts 15.20-21) or Gentile (Acts 15.10,19) when it came to accepting and spreading the Gospel.

You are free to try to adhere to Mosaic food laws, and you are free to try to adhere to the prohibitions in Acts 15 (as long as it is the interests of general "healthy-living" equity and not works righteousness - in a way similar to circumcision). But as they are not moral laws, they cannot be binding on everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top