If the place which Jehovah thy God will choose to set his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt slay of thy kine and of thy sheep which Jehovah hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates according to all the desire of thy soul.
Some in Israel would settle far from the one place God chose for His name. He let them kill from their own herd and flock and eat the meat at home — but does distance loosen His claim on daily life?
The verse looks back to what the chapter settled earlier: God picks the place, not Israel.
God must and does choose for Himself — a simple yet most important consideration (vv. 5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26). Worship invented by man's own will cannot be tolerated. It ought most of all to shock the Christian... People like to choose for themselves in ordinary matters. What an awful delusion, then, to choose for God — to let your own will rule you in matters of religion!
In the desert, Israel camped around the tabernacle, so every animal killed could be brought to the altar. Settled in a land stretching for miles, that was no longer possible, and the law was adjusted.
The next proclamation concerned the stranger living among Israel (vv. 8, 9) as well as the Israelite. It dealt with burnt offerings and peace offerings. In the wilderness they could bring these only to God's altar. That guarded them well against idol altars as they travelled from place to place. Camped around the tabernacle, the whole congregation could keep these laws. In the land God allowed a change (Deut. 12:21-25). Without it, only the favoured few who lived near the tabernacle or the temple could have eaten from their own flocks or herds.
The permission draws a firm line. Meat eaten at home is food, nothing more. Anyone in the house could share it, clean or unclean — yet one rule still held.
If the tabernacle or temple was too far from them, they were free to kill any of the herd or of the flock and eat the meat. But they were to pour the blood out, not eat it... They might enjoy the fruits of Jehovah's goodness at any time in the land, and in any place. But no religious rite could go with such a meal unless they were near enough to God's altar... Both the unclean and the clean could eat meat killed at home. That was in no sense a sacrifice, and on no pretext were they to treat it as one.
Commentators weigh this differently. Another writer sees the law of Leviticus 17 not cancelled but spread over the whole land. The family table then keeps something of the altar about it:
In a lesser sense they are taught to make all taking of life a "sacrifice" to the Lord... they pour the blood on the ground as the life which belongs to God. It is the application of the principle of Lev. 17 (which in its full detail was only possible in the camp in the wilderness) to the land at large... Each common meal was to carry, as far as it could, the character of a peace offering. They were to enjoy it in communion with God.
The herd and flock were God's gift, so the home meal was still His kindness. His one chosen place did not shrink family life; it enriched it.
And oh, what an unspeakable privilege for all who loved God and loved one another to gather at the place where He recorded His Name! And what touching grace shines out — He desired to gather His people around Himself from time to time! Did that fact infringe their personal rights and domestic privileges? No, it enhanced them immensely. God, in His infinite goodness, took care of this. It was His delight to minister to the joy and blessing of His people, privately, socially and publicly.
The concession has an edge to it. What may be eaten at home is ordinary food; the holy things still had to travel. Older translations read "within your gates" where the ESV has "within your towns" — meaning the home setting.
Verses 21 to 25 show the gracious and tender consideration of the Lord. Some, for good reasons, could not reach that place. They might enjoy communion with Him where they were, but there was a limit to that. The "holy things," the "burnt offerings," had to be brought to "the place which the Lord shall choose." Some devoted believers today are bedridden, or kept in other ways from gathering with fellow believers. They too may know the sweetness of communion where they are. Yet it is when we gather around the Lord Himself that, as nowhere else, we grasp His love.
- God chooses. The place is His choice, not Israel's. All through the chapter He refuses worship that follows man's own taste.
- God provides. The land was wide and the sanctuary was one. So He allowed meat at home; without that, only families near the altar could eat from their own flocks.
- God distinguishes. Meat killed at home is food, not sacrifice; clean and unclean alike may eat it, and no rite attaches to it.
- God still claims. They pour the blood out, so even an everyday meal carries the mark of a life that belongs to Him.
- God gathers. He makes room for distance, yet the holy things still go to the chosen place. Communion at home is real. Being gathered around Him is more.
Even as the gazelle and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat them the unclean and the clean alike may eat of them.
Deuteronomy 12 fixes worship at one place God would choose. Verses 20-22 then let Israel eat meat at home — a meal measured by two wild animals, where the unclean eat beside the clean.
The comparison is not random. These two animals were fit to eat, but no one could offer them on God's altar. That is why they set the pattern for a meal at home.
There were other clean animals under the law, such as the gazelle and the deer (Deut. 12:15), but they were not tame farm animals, so no one could offer them to God. They were clean, and God said, "you may kill and eat them in your gates." But Israel was never to bring them and offer them in God's gates.
God's claim on one central place of worship might look like a restriction on family life. One commentator argues the opposite. The God who gathers His people also takes care of their table at home.
What moving grace shines in His desire to gather His people around Himself from time to time! Did that take away their personal rights and family privileges? No, it increased them greatly. God, in His infinite goodness, took care of this. It was His delight to minister to the joy and blessing of His people, privately, socially and publicly.
Why could an unclean person share this meal at all? The answer turns on what the meal is not.
Of flesh killed at home, both the unclean and clean could eat. That meal was in no sense a sacrifice, and they were never to treat it as one, for any reason. When it was a peace-offering, the unclean could not eat of it (Lev. 7:20), for one in that state could not have communion with Jehovah.
So this chapter holds two kinds of eating side by side. What goes to God belongs to one place only. What appetite asks for belongs at home.
But the point is this: the offering here was made to God, as worship. It was not about what the soul craved. Here a man could eat in communion with the altar, with God, but here only. Sacrificial eating happened at the chosen place only. So what the soul craved, the unclean could eat (verse 22).
The line runs in both directions.
Verse 17 insists that none of the things offered to God were to be eaten "within your gates" — that is, at home. Israel was to treat them as clearly set apart, and eat them only in the place the Lord would choose. So their worship was to be kept completely separate from their ordinary home life.
The permission is generous, but it is not unguarded. One restriction follows at once, and the repetition has a purpose.
Verses 20-22 repeat God's permission for Israel to eat meat in their homes, as long as they did not offer the animal as a sacrifice to God. But God adds one restriction: they were to eat no blood (vs.23-25). Israel needed such repetition to take the truth of the Word of God to heart.
That boundary was later crossed. Hunger was what broke it.
Saul has put both himself and the people under this miserable restraint, and the result is that they are led into sin. They are so hungry that, when the time of the oath runs out, they rush on the cattle taken as spoil. They kill them and eat the flesh with the blood, breaking a direct command of God (Deut. 12:22-23).
- Pattern — The gazelle and the deer were clean food, but never sacrifice. They set the measure for an ordinary meal: eaten at home, never offered to God.
- Gift — One central place of worship did not shrink family life. God's goodness made room for joy at home, with others, and in public.
- Reach — This meal was no sacrifice, so the unclean ate beside the clean. A peace offering was different: an unclean person could have no communion with God.
- Line — Worship belongs at the place God chose; appetite belongs at home. Keep the two distinct, or home routine swallows worship.
- Limit — The freedom came fenced: Israel was never to eat the blood. Saul's starving army shows how fast hunger breaks a plain command of God.
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;
Moses has just given Israel wide freedom. Once they live in the land, they may kill and eat meat in any town. Then God draws one line across that freedom: the blood. The reason He gives is that the blood is the life.
What comes just before this is not restriction but generosity. One writer weighs how much room God gives for family life before naming the one thing held back.
Here, without doubt, the goodness and tender mercy of God give a broad margin for the fullest range of personal and family enjoyment. The only restriction had to do with the blood.
Why did God hold back the blood? One writer answers by pointing back to Eden.
The blood was the life, and man was not to eat it. To eat it would have been a bold grab at what he had lost through sin. It would have been an attempt to win life back by forcing his way past the guarding sword of the cherubim. This rule told the sinner that, having lost his title to the tree of life, he can never return to it by his own strength. The life has gone back to God. Blood is His. And the gospel comes to tell us how He has used it. By it and through it He provides new, eternal, certain life for the dead sinner.
Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy each state the rule, but they do not state it identically — and the difference explains the promise attached here, that it will go well with you and your children.
In Genesis (9:4), God attached no penalty to breaking that command. He only gave a reason for it: in the blood is the life of the flesh. To eat it would in effect be claiming that life belonged to the creature, when it belongs to God... So we have the prohibition in Genesis, the penalty announced in Leviticus, and the blessing set before Israel in Deuteronomy if they obey: "that all may go well with you and with your children after you."
Was this only a food rule for Israel? One writer says no, and points to the apostles' decision in Acts 15.
Eating blood denied the rights of God, the Creator. If man forfeited his own rights by sin, the Lord still kept His title over life in full... So we see that eating blood was still forbidden long after God gave the Holy Spirit, and long after the apostles insisted that Gentiles were free from circumcision. They required personal purity as well. The Christian is the last person who should make light of a "faithful Creator." The rules God laid down for Noah are not Jewish laws. They still stand, as the apostles decided in Acts 15.
The next verse tells them to pour it on the ground like water. That phrase draws one writer straight to the cross.
God reminded them that "the blood is the life," and that life comes straight from Him. So when they killed an animal, they were to pour the blood out on the earth like water. This was blood "as water." Strikingly, when the soldier pierced the side of Jesus, "at once there came out blood and water" (John 19:34)... His blood is not only the basis of moral and spiritual cleansing. It also paid the penalty of sin, when He gave up His life's blood.
Why does God set such value on blood? One writer ties the answer to atonement.
The sinner has forfeited his life. He can only live before God on the ground of the death of a sacrifice in his place... The blood makes atonement for the soul. Once the blood is shed, the life is given up to God, and that is precious to Him... Learn what blood is in God's eyes — that in which is the life of the flesh — and you see why He could delight in the blood of His Son. That blood is the witness of a self-surrender, even to death, which must be so precious to Him.
Scripture gives a case study. Saul's exhausted army, bound by his rash oath, later fell on the plunder and ate meat with the blood.
The fear of God has left them. They fall on the plunder and break the first principle of sacrificial law — that all blood belonged to God. This brings in real defilement. The pouring out of blood (Deut. 12:23-24) always pointed forward to that Sacrifice of "richer blood" that would one day be shed.
- Life — the blood is the life, and life comes straight from God. Man may never treat life as his own.
- Loss — man lost his title to life through sin and cannot seize it back. The life has gone back to God, and the blood is His.
- Lasting — Genesis forbids it. Leviticus adds the death penalty. Deuteronomy adds a blessing. The apostles kept it in Acts 15.
- Poured out — blood spilled on the ground like water is life given up. It points to the blood and water from the pierced side of Jesus.
- Precious — God delights in the blood of His Son because blood means life given up. The rule that guarded life points to the One who gave His.
thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water
Moses has just given Israel a wide freedom: in the land they may kill and eat meat at home, far from the sanctuary. One limit stands inside that freedom — blood is never food, and God ties His people's good to keeping the rule.
The command closes a passage about ordinary meals at home, not about worship at the sanctuary.
Here we have a broad margin given by the goodness and tender mercy of God, for the fullest range of personal and family enjoyment. The only restriction was in reference to the blood.
Israel did not have to understand the rule before obeying it.
This was a great foundational principle under the law... How far Israel understood it is not the question. They were to obey, so that it might go well with them, and with their children after them. In this matter they were to acknowledge the sovereign rights of God.
Pouring the blood out was not waste. It handed the animal's life back to the One who gave it.
Eating blood denied man's duty to acknowledge that life is forfeited to God. Man had to acknowledge God in a solemn way — if not on the altar, then at least by pouring out the blood on the earth as due to Him, instead of taking it for his own pleasure. Death was a serious thing, and the LORD would not have it treated lightly, even when He allowed His people to eat flesh killed for their food.
after_note: DELETE
The command reaches homes all over the land, so it carries the meaning of the altar into daily life.
In a lesser sense they are taught to make all taking of life a "sacrifice" to the LORD... they pour the blood on the ground as the life which belongs to God. This applies the principle of Leviticus 17 to the land at large, though its full detail was only possible in the camp in the wilderness. Here, as there, they were to feel the sacredness of life, and to lift their own life into spiritual meaning and bring it near to God. Each common meal was to have... the character of a peace offering: they were to enjoy it in communion with God.
The verse compares the blood to water. One writer connects that picture with the pierced side of Jesus, and with what His death paid.
This was blood "as water." It is a remarkable fact that when the soldier pierced the side of Jesus, "at once there came out blood and water" (John 19:34). In his letter the Apostle John reminds us that our Lord came by blood as well as by water. That is, the blood is not only the basis of moral and spiritual cleansing. It also paid the penalty of sin in the giving up of His life's blood. Many in our day are unwilling to admit this last fact, but it is of all importance.
The rule also passes a verdict on man. It marks what sin cost him, and then points to how God answers that loss.
The blood was the life, and man was not to eat it. Eating it would have been a bold re-taking of what he had lost through sin. It would have been an attempt to regain life by forcing the passage guarded by the sword of the cherubim — the angel guards. For this command told the sinner that, having lost his title to the tree of life, he can never return to it in his own strength. The life has gone back to God. Blood is His. And the gospel comes to tell us how He has used it, even giving with it and through it new, eternal, unfailing life for the dead sinner.
Commentators note that this command did not begin with Moses and did not end with him.
The rule about blood goes back beyond Moses to God's covenant with Noah and his descendants. So it is not merely Jewish, though the Jewish law included it. It applies to the whole present race of men. "The blood is the life," and life belongs to God... Man has, of course, set it aside, and the world at large has forgotten it. But the good of what comes from God remains, and the Church has the duty and privilege of maintaining it — the rights of the Creator, as well as the grace of the Redeemer.
- Freedom first. God opens a wide margin for family enjoyment of the land's produce, and draws only one line across it — the blood.
- Life returned. Pouring the blood on the ground hands life back to God, instead of keeping it for one's own pleasure.
- Table sanctified. The rule carries the altar into every home. Each ordinary meal takes on the character of a peace offering, enjoyed in communion with God.
- Cross foreshadowed. Blood poured out "as water" points on to the pierced side of Jesus, and to a death that paid the penalty of sin.
- Claim unrepealed. The command is older than Moses and reaches all people. It upholds the rights of the Creator alongside the grace of the Redeemer.
thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do what is right in the eyes of Jehovah.
Moses has just told Israel they may kill and eat meat in their own towns once they settle in the land, without a trip to the sanctuary. God holds back one thing only — the blood — and this verse ties a promise to that single limit.
Notice how much God gave before He held anything back.
Here we have, without a doubt, a wide margin given by the goodness and tender mercy of God, for the fullest range of personal and family enjoyment. The only restriction had to do with the blood.
The verse before gives the reason: the blood is the life. Eating it was not a slip of diet but a denial of who owns life.
In Israel, as we see in these verses, to eat blood stirred up Jehovah's jealousy, and He cut the offender off. It made no difference whether the man was an Israelite or a foreigner living among them. Eating blood denied that man owes the forfeit of life to God. Man had to own God's claim in a serious way. If not on the altar, then at least by pouring the blood out on the earth as owed to Him, instead of taking it for his own pleasure. Death was a serious thing, and Jehovah would not have it treated lightly, even when He allowed His people to eat meat killed for food.
The ban on blood appears three times in Scripture, and each time it carries something different.
In Genesis 9:4, however, God attached no penalty to breaking that command. He gave only a reason: in the blood is the life of the flesh. So to eat it would be to assume that life belonged to the creature, when in fact it belongs to God. In Leviticus God attached a penalty for those He commanded not to eat it, and that penalty was death… In Deuteronomy 12:25 the Lord reminds Israel of it again. Genesis gives the prohibition, Leviticus announces the penalty, and Deuteronomy sets the blessing before Israel if they obey: "that all may go well with you and with your children after you."
Israel did not have to understand the command before obeying it. The promise rests on doing what is right.
How far Israel understood it is not the question. They were to obey, so that it might go well with them and with their children after them. In this matter they were to own the sovereign rights of God.
Israel had to do more than avoid the blood. They had to pour it out on the ground like water, and one writer finds an echo of that at the cross.
This is repeated twice in this chapter. God reminded them that "the blood is the life," and life comes straight from God. So when they killed an animal they were to pour the blood out on the earth like water. This was blood "as water." It is a remarkable fact that when the soldier pierced the side of Jesus, "at once there came out blood and water" (John 19:34). In his letter the Apostle John reminds us that our Lord came by blood as well as by water. The blood is not only the basis of moral and spiritual cleansing; it also paid the penalty of sin in the giving up of His life's blood.
after_note: DELETE
The same writer moves from the sinner's need to the blood of God's Son.
The sinner has forfeited his life. He can live before God only on the ground of the death of a sacrifice in his place… For when we learn what blood is in God's eyes — that in which is the life of the flesh — we see why He could delight in the blood of His Son. That blood is the witness of a self-surrender, even to death, which must be so precious to Him. So the ban on eating blood reminds us of three important truths. We are creatures, and must remember it. We were by nature sinners, and must acknowledge it. We owe atonement by blood wholly to God, and must always own it.
Commentators hold that this restraint did not end with the law.
This has been true in every age. The reason is that the blood is called "the life" of the creature, and life belongs to God alone. So when we refuse to eat blood, we recognize the rights of the Creator.
- Freedom. God opened meat to every household in the land. One thing only stayed off the table.
- Ownership. The blood is the life, and life belongs to God — eating it would claim as your own what is His.
- Progression. Genesis gave the reason, Leviticus added the penalty, Deuteronomy adds the promise.
- Obedience. Israel was to obey before understanding. God's rights came first, not their grasp of the reason.
- Reach. The promise reaches past the obedient man to his children. One man's respect for God's claim shapes his family's future.