What does the New Testament say about eating blood?

In these days, when men's minds are so active in raising questions about almost everything, not a few have said a great deal about what should be eaten, and what should not be eaten. But concerning this we have the clearest instruction in the New Testament. The Christian, on the one hand, is told that "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (1 Tim. 4:4-5.) On the other hand, "things strangled" and "blood" are as much prohibited now as ever. Before the deluge God gave men "the herb of the field" for food (Gen. 3:18); but after the deluge, and when the Lord smelled a sweet savour, or a savour of rest, in the clean beasts that had been sacrificed, and blessed Noah and his sons, He said, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Gen. 8:20 to 9:4.) Thus blood was prohibited by God in the days of Noah; and man, whether Jew or Gentile, infidel or Christian, has never from that time had liberty from God to eat blood. To believers in Christ who are brought into the liberty of children of God, it has been written by the apostles: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that 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." (Acts 15:28-29.) From this scripture it is clear, that, however literally this chapter in Leviticus called for an observance on the part of the children of Israel in daily food, to us it can have no such meaning; for the only prohibitions we have are "from things strangled," and "from blood."

A. — Meyer's view that the phrase, "the pollutions," refers to the four particulars which follow seems to me untenable. The reason on which he argues (the absence of ἀπὸ before τ. π. has no force); for ἀπὸ is unnecessary any where after ἀπέχεσθαι, and is a doubtful insertion where some ancient MSS. give it. But there ought to be no question that "blood" means what is drawn out expressly from the animal for culinary use, and thus manifestly distinct from "strangled" where the purpose is to keep in the blood from flowing. Both are forbidden; for God demands that man shall by abstaining own that life belongs to Him. If any be so self-willed as to plead that they do not see or understand, let them own their ignorance and obey. It is not a Jewish or Mosaic statute only, but for man since Noah and the deluge (Gen. 9:4). "Things offered to idols," though classed here like "fornication," with the other two, as things which the heathen counted indifferent, are forbidden as evils unworthy of Christians (one might add, of men) apart from the law, which the Pharisaic party in the church strove in vain to impose on Gentile believers. But the decrees in no way meant to weaken the immorality of fornication, any more than the insult or indifference to the one true God in eating knowingly of pollutions of idols. The apostles were content here to determine, that none of these things is an open question to Gentile converts, but that, if they abstain from all these necessary things, they will do well.

"All things are lawful" (v. 23) is connected with what is sold in the shambles. The apostle alludes to the custom of selling carcases for food in the common way after the animal had been offered in an idol's temple. But suppose we were sitting at a table with a person just come out from idolatry, and he said, "That joint was offered to an idol." His conscience is not free, and for his sake I do not eat it. To me it is all common meat.

In Acts 15 the commands to abstain from blood, from things offered to idols, and from fornication, are obligatory on a Christian now. They are not from law, but from Noah. Not that I should think if I had eaten blood, that I was defiled by it, for it is not the things that go in that defile. The above three things are special: one is life, and belongs to God; then idols are the giving up of the true God altogether; and fornication is giving up the purity of man. They are the three things which form the standard elements of what I have to say to God in. The two are plain enough: the third may be less clear. If a man came to me and said, 'That rabbit was caught in a trap,' I could say, 'Well, I will not eat it, simply for his sake.' To me these three principles are the expression of man as belonging to God, and not to his own lusts. As to blood, it is the life, and clearly belongs to God, but I leave every man's conscience to himself.

"All things are lawful" (v. 23) is connected with what is sold in the shambles. The apostle alludes to the custom of selling carcases for food in the common way after the animal had been offered in an idol's temple. But suppose we were sitting at a table with a person just come out from idolatry, and he said, "That joint was offered to an idol." His conscience is not free, and for his sake I do not eat it. To me it is all common meat.

In Acts 15 the commands to abstain from blood, from things offered to idols, and from fornication, are obligatory on a Christian now. They are not from law, but from Noah. Not that I should think if I had eaten blood, that I was defiled by it, for it is not the things that go in that defile. The above three things are special: one is life, and belongs to God; then idols are the giving up of the true God altogether; and fornication is giving up the purity of man. They are the three things which form the standard elements of what I have to say to God in. The two are plain enough: the third may be less clear. If a man came to me and said, 'That rabbit was caught in a trap,' I could say, 'Well, I will not eat it, simply for his sake.' To me these three principles are the expression of man as belonging to God, and not to his own lusts. As to blood, it is the life, and clearly belongs to God, but I leave every man's conscience to himself.

These Noahic precepts were carried out further for the children under law; but they were divinely made known for the post-diluvian world. And when the judaising party in the early days of the church strove to bring the Gentiles under the law, God took care to maintain liberty from the law of Moses for such. The effort was made at Antioch, where the very name of Christian was first heard, by certain men who came down from Judæa, and taught that none could be saved, unless circumcised. Paul and Barnabas after no small discussion failed to settle the question, which was carried to the source of the dispute; and all came out before the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. There Peter, giving a witness with no uncertain sound, asks why they tempted God by putting a yoke on the disciples "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord we shall be saved in like manner as they also," not merely shall they be saved even as we. Then Barnabas and Paul rehearsed what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them; and James summed up that which became the decree of the apostles and the elders with the whole assembly, nay of the Holy Spirit Himself; to lay upon the Gentile confessors no other burden than these necessary things — "that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which, if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you" (Acts 15:28-29).

It surprises not a few that non-complicity with idols, and personal purity should be set with abstaining from eating blood and things strangled. The apostles did not reason on the ground of man's conscience; for grave a monitor as it is, it was then and it might be at any time darkened by public opinion and habits, which among Gentiles made as little of idolatry and personal purity as of using blood and strangled things for food. The revealed will of God is absolute for the believer; and as a fact His face was set against all these indulgences, entirely apart from the peculiar institutions of Israel. They have the full weight of apostolic authority as "necessary things": what can abrogate this expressly for those of the Gentiles that believe? and in pointed distinction from Levitical ordinances? God's honour is inviolate, and His sanction of marriage, not of fornication. God insists on the recognition that life belongs to Himself; so that, as He gives to eat of flesh, He reserves the blood and forbids eating of things strangled similarly; and the Christian is in no way to be indifferent even to these last injunctions, but bound to honour Him in both.

The rest of Leviticus 17 is occupied with regulations as to eating. The blood, neither of beast nor fowl, was to be eaten for it is the life of the creature, and life belongs to God. This enactment specially enforced for Israel what had been laid down in the time of Noah after the flood, as recorded in Genesis 9:4. So when the apostles and elders gave this injunction to Gentile believers, as recorded in Acts 15:20 and 29, they were not imposing upon them what was merely an item of the law of Moses, but rather a prohibition that applies to mankind generally. We do well to observe it, though we do not need to observe the extreme scruples of the Jews, as is shown by the instruction of 1 Corinthians 10:25.

Three steps had been taken in this controversy. First, the ground of the objectors was completely cut away. Next, that God was working among Gentiles was undeniably established. Third, Scripture, though foreseeing that, nowhere taught that they should be circumcised. To Scripture teaching all must bow. As God had not enjoined circumcision on Gentiles, neither could the Apostles and Elders. Nor under the law could they put them. Yet there were certain things from which these once Gentiles in common with these once Jews must abstain as creatures of God. These James intimates - viz., pollution of idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood, assigning as a reason that "Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day" (Acts 15:21). All might learn from the Pentateuch God's mind for men. So all must conform to that as worshippers of the one true God, and sharers in Divine grace. It was patent that idolatry must be renounced by the converts. The Thessalonian saints subsequently bore testimony to this, for they turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God (1 Thess.1:9). And a danger there was, unless it was given up, of pandering to it, as illustrated by the Corinthians (1 Cor.8, 10), and by those at Pergamos (Rev.2:14). Next, God's institution of marriage, a provision against fornication (1 Cor.7:2), was for the benefit of the whole human race. So that sin, but little frowned on among the Gentiles, must be renounced by disciples of the Lord Jesus. And lastly, the prohibition against eating blood must be enforced. This dated from the days of Noah, and was imposed on Noah and on his sons (Gen.9:4) just after the flood. It clearly concerned the whole human family. Here it might be asked, Did not the law prohibit eating blood? Unquestionably. Was not James then really putting the converts from heathenism under the law by this? Not at all. The law did prohibit it, but under a penalty (Lev.17:10-12). Gen.9:4 prohibited it, but mentioned no penalty. In perfect keeping was this with dispensational teaching. To those placed under law a penalty attached to the infraction of the command. To those never under law, as Noah and his sons, no penalty was prescribed for disobedience in this respect. Now that command, then given, has never been cancelled, so is binding, of course, on all Noah's descendants. On it then James insisted, but not as a penal enactment. There are things forbidden in the Word to men as men. There are also things forbidden to those under law. So whilst upholding the perfect freedom of converts from the Gentiles from the yoke sought to be imposed on them, whatever God's Word had said to men as men, and had not cancelled, remained in force, and must be attended to. Well indeed were they guided at this conference, steering clear of any insistence on the converts in question being put under law, but steering clear equally of any relaxation of the Divine injunctions for the whole human race. The manner too of handling the controversy is worthy of notice. One may refute a proposition by showing the untenableness of it. This Peter did. One may also seek for light on it from the written Word of God. This James did. Thus the matter, to use a modern expression, was thoroughly thrashed out. Unanimity now prevailed, where diversity of judgment had been freely declared.

We have no difficulty as to the first two things specified here. The last two are connected together, and go back beyond Moses to God's covenant with Noah and his posterity, — therefore are not simply Jewish, though incorporated in the Jewish law, but apply to the whole present race of men. "The blood is the life," and life belongs to God: the recognition of this in so open a way as is here enjoined is surely seemly; and in a world of strife and bloodshed such as sin has made this, — where, too, the creatures subjected to man are in danger of ruthless extirpation at his hands, not even limited by his own interest in their preservation, is (or would be, if it were maintained) every way for good. Man has, of course, set it aside, and the world at large has forgotten it; but the good of that which is from God abides, and this it is the duty and privilege of the Church to maintain, — the rights of the Creator, as well as the grace of the Redeemer. Another has said with regard to this decree:

"It is a direction which teaches, not that which is abstractly good or evil, but that which was suitable to the case presented. It was necessary, not 'righteous before God', to avoid certain things. The things might be really evil, but they are not here looked at in that way. There were certain things to which the Gentiles were accustomed, which it was proper they should renounce, in order that the assembly might walk as it ought before God in peace. To the other ordinances of the law they were not to be subjected. Moses had those who preached him. That sufficed, without compelling the Gentiles to submit to his laws, when they joined themselves, not to the Jews, but to the Lord.

But the blood was universally interdicted to the people who knew, as none others did of old, that life belongs to God. It mattered not what the animal might be, fowl or beast, all was forbidden absolutely. "And ye shall eat no blood, of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings: whatever soul [it be] that eats any manner of blood shall be cut off from his peoples." It denied the rights of God, the Creator; and if man forfeited his by sin, Jehovah maintained His title over it unimpaired. He instituted government by man in the first place to take cognisance of death by violent intent. Shed blood is its sign, and it belongs to God exclusively; man has no title to appropriate it. So we see that, long after the Holy Spirit was given, and Gentile freedom from circumcision was insisted on, eating of blood was still prohibited, as well as personal purity enjoined. The Christian is the last who should make light of a "faithful Creator." The principles laid down for Noah are not Jewish statutes, and subsist: so the apostles decided in Acts 15.

In Israel God insisted that it was a perpetual statute that they eat neither fat nor blood (v. 17). Today believers are warned definitely not to eat blood (Acts 15:20). This restriction was introduced when God first allowed men to eat animals (Gen. 9:3-4), long before the law was given to Israel. Neither at that time, nor under grace today is there any restriction as to eating fat, however. Most of us may find that our health is better if we refrain from eating fat, in spite of our liberty to do so.