A_Son_of_God
Forum Reasoner - Nemesis of the Trolls
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2023
- Messages
- 339
- Reaction score
- 94
Some have come forward, and amongst other things, claimed that the Biblical terms of use of blood only refer to eating it.
So in this post, I will address some scriptural reasoning as to how blood is viewed by God, and what he states to all of us who claim to be his followers. Note: This is to those who wish to please God, and has no bearing on those who choose not to. What each one does is their own business.
You will benefit by looking up the scriptures yourself in your own copy of a bible. Additionally, most of the information is available in the publication "Insight on the Scriptures", under the heading "Blood". It is available online for you to look at should you choose. But I have written this article due to the claim being raised in the room by some.
First Account
The first mention of blood, at least directly mentioned, was when Cain killed his brother Abel, where God stated that Abel's blood "cried out" to him (Genesis 4:10). The killing of Abel - the spilling of his blood - brought a curse to Cain, and he lived out his remaining years as a wanderer and a fugitive, driven away from society. His bloodline appears to disappear at the time of the flood.
Noah
By the time of Noah, mankind had become so wicked that God had deemed them fit for destruction. Most likely due to the changes in the earth's environment, Noah was permitted to eat meat after the flood (Genesis 9:3-6), whereas prior to this, he was to eat only vegetation from seed-bearing plants (Genesis 1:29, Genesis 2:16-17).
Moses and the Law Covenant
In the time of Moses, specific laws were given to the Israelites regarding the use of blood. This included the eating of blood in food, but also the value of blood, and that it was viewed as sacred by God, and misuse of it was viewed as "defiling the earth" (Numbers 35:33), which this context shows the "pollution" that defiles was the blood spilt by both deliberate and accidental deaths. That is how careful the Israelite had to view the blood - which God views as where "the soul" of physical lives are. If he accidentally killed someone, he was still bloodguilty, and thereby accountable to the avenger of blood. At that stage, it was the nearest male relative who was the legal avenger of blood. The person who murdered had no hope of surviving the ordeal, as they were handed over to the avenger of blood. The accidental manslayer had to flee to one of the cities of refuge, and stay there until the high priest died.
Also, if a person was FOUND dead, bloodguilt was placed on the nearest city, and specific things had to be done to release the city from the spilling of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 21:1-9).
Separate to manslaughter and murder, blood was used only for sacrificial reasons (Leviticus 17:10-11), which demonstrated to the Israelites that blood removed sins. In other words, they were all worthy of death, as they had all sinned, and it cost them dearly - namely by having to have lives lost. People sometimes balk at the idea of sacrificing animals, but consider this: If mankind had not sinned - chosen a path that did not meet God's standards, and led to death - no animals would have had to die at all. Mankind's sins have affected every single thing on this earth. But anyway, God commanded that things were "cleansed" by blood, setting a pattern that in time would be demonstrated by what the Messiah provided for mankind. There were specific laws as to WHO could offer up the sacrifices, and HOW it was to be done (Leviticus 17:3-4), let alone the what, when and where. If these were sacrificed out of harmony with the way God had instructed his covenant people, they would be liable to harsh penalties. This was the agreement they made with God, and God in turn expected them to live up to it.
So far, you can see that blood was viewed as sacred in God's eyes, and the misuse of it had serious consequences. In fact, looking at Leviticus 17:3-4, we can see that people could be viewed as bloodguilty - not for eating blood - but for not presenting the animal for atonement (which involved the spilling of blood), the person was viewed as bloodguilty, and would pay for it with their lives. So this law on blood was not only about EATING blood, but for the misuse of it from the way God required.
Jesus, and the Christian Congregation
So what about Jesus' teachings? Did they touch on blood? And what of the teachings of the apostles in the first century?
Firstly, Jesus was a Jew. He followed the Law Code, but being the Messiah, he presented his very life as the sacrifice for us. His blood was spilt, and being sinless, he was entitled to have his human life given back to him. Instead though, he paid the price that Adam had sold us under. Namely, a perfect (perfect meaning exactly fit for the purpose it was made for) man who chose to sell ALL his children under the curse of sickness and death, by being bought by a perfect man, who paid for the blood that us humans just could never achieve, as there is no ability for any of us to be perfect, even from birth. We inherit sin just like we inherit genetic traits from our ancestors.
But what about this blood thing? Were the teachings of Jesus and the apostles specifically talking about eating blood?
Well, we can see Jesus use a figurative sense of "eating blood" to throw off those who weren't genuinely seeking understanding, when he said, "Whoever does not eat of my flesh and drink of my blood..." (John 6:44-61) So, yes, there was a specific mention of eating of blood, although in a figurative sense. Jesus was not condoning cannibalism, but used a metaphor to sift people.
But also, it is important to note that the Christian section of the Bible - the Christian Greek Scriptures, or the "New Testament" as it is commonly known - was in harmony with the Hebrew section of the Bible, with the only difference being in that Messiah had come, and covenants had changed. For instance, look at how Hebrews 10:1-4 shows the link between Christ's flesh and blood sacrifice, and that of the Mosaic Law, regarding animal sacrifices. There was no change in the point of view of the sanctity of blood, nor of its sacrificial value. In fact, it was more greatly emphasised, in that Jesus' blood actually paid the price for our inherited sins (Hebrews 12:24).
What About The Account In Acts?
In chapter 15 of Acts, it states clearly to "...abstain...from blood...". Yet some claim that this is to do specifically with "eating" of it. But when we examine the context, it does include the eating of it, but not exclusively. The whole chapter describes an issue, where the Jewish Christian congregations - or at least some from it - were trying to enforce circumcision on non-Jewish Christians, who had been receiving the holy spirit even though they were uncircumcised, and ate things like pork, and had married people from nations that may have been formerly opposed to the Israelites.
So let's look at it. This is what it says at Acts 15:28-29:
Well, as much as meat being sacrificed to idols MAY include the eating of blood, the emphasis is not on eating at all, but on the idolatry.
Additionally, "sexual immorality" certainly has nothing to do with eating blood.
Because the ending has "Good health to you!", some try to reason that it must be about food too, but to say that and not to think that sexual immorality can cause bad health consequences is playing ignorant on some very serious facts.
Some may say "Yeah, but I did it to save a life" or "But I enjoy eating black pudding". That's all fine and good. You are free to do as you please. The point is this: The Bible's law on blood is not exclusive to eating of it, but is to do with the sacred nature of how God views blood, and how those of us who want to please God should be aware of, so we can change to HIS standards, and not change HIS standards to OUR standards. Not all want to please God, nor even acknowledge him. That's fine for them. Good for them. But for those who wish to please God, we have these laws and principles to apply.
We've all sinned, and the extent of God's mercy is profound. God is so merciful that any of us - even those who have turned away from practices that take even human lives can stand before God as forgiven, based on the sanctity of Jesus' blood he poured out for us. But this is by being obedient to God's instructions, using HIS provisions, and ensuring that the works are dead works (Hebrews 9:12-15).
So in this post, I will address some scriptural reasoning as to how blood is viewed by God, and what he states to all of us who claim to be his followers. Note: This is to those who wish to please God, and has no bearing on those who choose not to. What each one does is their own business.
You will benefit by looking up the scriptures yourself in your own copy of a bible. Additionally, most of the information is available in the publication "Insight on the Scriptures", under the heading "Blood". It is available online for you to look at should you choose. But I have written this article due to the claim being raised in the room by some.
First Account
The first mention of blood, at least directly mentioned, was when Cain killed his brother Abel, where God stated that Abel's blood "cried out" to him (Genesis 4:10). The killing of Abel - the spilling of his blood - brought a curse to Cain, and he lived out his remaining years as a wanderer and a fugitive, driven away from society. His bloodline appears to disappear at the time of the flood.
Noah
By the time of Noah, mankind had become so wicked that God had deemed them fit for destruction. Most likely due to the changes in the earth's environment, Noah was permitted to eat meat after the flood (Genesis 9:3-6), whereas prior to this, he was to eat only vegetation from seed-bearing plants (Genesis 1:29, Genesis 2:16-17).
Moses and the Law Covenant
In the time of Moses, specific laws were given to the Israelites regarding the use of blood. This included the eating of blood in food, but also the value of blood, and that it was viewed as sacred by God, and misuse of it was viewed as "defiling the earth" (Numbers 35:33), which this context shows the "pollution" that defiles was the blood spilt by both deliberate and accidental deaths. That is how careful the Israelite had to view the blood - which God views as where "the soul" of physical lives are. If he accidentally killed someone, he was still bloodguilty, and thereby accountable to the avenger of blood. At that stage, it was the nearest male relative who was the legal avenger of blood. The person who murdered had no hope of surviving the ordeal, as they were handed over to the avenger of blood. The accidental manslayer had to flee to one of the cities of refuge, and stay there until the high priest died.
Also, if a person was FOUND dead, bloodguilt was placed on the nearest city, and specific things had to be done to release the city from the spilling of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 21:1-9).
Separate to manslaughter and murder, blood was used only for sacrificial reasons (Leviticus 17:10-11), which demonstrated to the Israelites that blood removed sins. In other words, they were all worthy of death, as they had all sinned, and it cost them dearly - namely by having to have lives lost. People sometimes balk at the idea of sacrificing animals, but consider this: If mankind had not sinned - chosen a path that did not meet God's standards, and led to death - no animals would have had to die at all. Mankind's sins have affected every single thing on this earth. But anyway, God commanded that things were "cleansed" by blood, setting a pattern that in time would be demonstrated by what the Messiah provided for mankind. There were specific laws as to WHO could offer up the sacrifices, and HOW it was to be done (Leviticus 17:3-4), let alone the what, when and where. If these were sacrificed out of harmony with the way God had instructed his covenant people, they would be liable to harsh penalties. This was the agreement they made with God, and God in turn expected them to live up to it.
So far, you can see that blood was viewed as sacred in God's eyes, and the misuse of it had serious consequences. In fact, looking at Leviticus 17:3-4, we can see that people could be viewed as bloodguilty - not for eating blood - but for not presenting the animal for atonement (which involved the spilling of blood), the person was viewed as bloodguilty, and would pay for it with their lives. So this law on blood was not only about EATING blood, but for the misuse of it from the way God required.
Jesus, and the Christian Congregation
So what about Jesus' teachings? Did they touch on blood? And what of the teachings of the apostles in the first century?
Firstly, Jesus was a Jew. He followed the Law Code, but being the Messiah, he presented his very life as the sacrifice for us. His blood was spilt, and being sinless, he was entitled to have his human life given back to him. Instead though, he paid the price that Adam had sold us under. Namely, a perfect (perfect meaning exactly fit for the purpose it was made for) man who chose to sell ALL his children under the curse of sickness and death, by being bought by a perfect man, who paid for the blood that us humans just could never achieve, as there is no ability for any of us to be perfect, even from birth. We inherit sin just like we inherit genetic traits from our ancestors.
But what about this blood thing? Were the teachings of Jesus and the apostles specifically talking about eating blood?
Well, we can see Jesus use a figurative sense of "eating blood" to throw off those who weren't genuinely seeking understanding, when he said, "Whoever does not eat of my flesh and drink of my blood..." (John 6:44-61) So, yes, there was a specific mention of eating of blood, although in a figurative sense. Jesus was not condoning cannibalism, but used a metaphor to sift people.
But also, it is important to note that the Christian section of the Bible - the Christian Greek Scriptures, or the "New Testament" as it is commonly known - was in harmony with the Hebrew section of the Bible, with the only difference being in that Messiah had come, and covenants had changed. For instance, look at how Hebrews 10:1-4 shows the link between Christ's flesh and blood sacrifice, and that of the Mosaic Law, regarding animal sacrifices. There was no change in the point of view of the sanctity of blood, nor of its sacrificial value. In fact, it was more greatly emphasised, in that Jesus' blood actually paid the price for our inherited sins (Hebrews 12:24).
What About The Account In Acts?
In chapter 15 of Acts, it states clearly to "...abstain...from blood...". Yet some claim that this is to do specifically with "eating" of it. But when we examine the context, it does include the eating of it, but not exclusively. The whole chapter describes an issue, where the Jewish Christian congregations - or at least some from it - were trying to enforce circumcision on non-Jewish Christians, who had been receiving the holy spirit even though they were uncircumcised, and ate things like pork, and had married people from nations that may have been formerly opposed to the Israelites.
So let's look at it. This is what it says at Acts 15:28-29:
Looking at this, we can see that the instruction certainly does include the EATING of blood. But is this all?
Well, as much as meat being sacrificed to idols MAY include the eating of blood, the emphasis is not on eating at all, but on the idolatry.
Additionally, "sexual immorality" certainly has nothing to do with eating blood.
Because the ending has "Good health to you!", some try to reason that it must be about food too, but to say that and not to think that sexual immorality can cause bad health consequences is playing ignorant on some very serious facts.
Some may say "Yeah, but I did it to save a life" or "But I enjoy eating black pudding". That's all fine and good. You are free to do as you please. The point is this: The Bible's law on blood is not exclusive to eating of it, but is to do with the sacred nature of how God views blood, and how those of us who want to please God should be aware of, so we can change to HIS standards, and not change HIS standards to OUR standards. Not all want to please God, nor even acknowledge him. That's fine for them. Good for them. But for those who wish to please God, we have these laws and principles to apply.
We've all sinned, and the extent of God's mercy is profound. God is so merciful that any of us - even those who have turned away from practices that take even human lives can stand before God as forgiven, based on the sanctity of Jesus' blood he poured out for us. But this is by being obedient to God's instructions, using HIS provisions, and ensuring that the works are dead works (Hebrews 9:12-15).
Last edited:
