The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Eating Blood, Patristics, Reformers

Link said:

Could someone refer me to writings of patristics and/ or Reformers on the issue of eating blood, perhaps commentaries on Acts 15 and other passages?

New Testament Commentary on Acts 15:20 by William Hendricksen and Simon J Kistemaker

Strangled animals. A Jew refuses to eat the meat of an animal that has been strangled. Whenever an animal is not butchered and its blood properly drained from the body, the meat is defiled (Lev. 17:13; see also Gen. 9:4). This animal, then, is a cadaver unfit for human consumption. The apostolic injunction to Gentile believers not to eat any meal of strangled animals teaches them basic sanitation. Compliance with the injunction gives them social acceptability among Jewish believers in the Christian community.

Blood. This last stipulation concerns the Jewish abhorrence of blood. The Mosaic law forbids consumption of blood and states that life is in the blood (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10, 13–14). Gentile Christians were fully aware of the Jewish religious, moral, and dietary restrictions. Hence, the apostolic decrees were not a shock to them.

Barnes Notes on Acts 15:20

And from things strangled That is, from animals or birds that were killed without shedding their blood. The reason why these were considered by the Jews unlawful to. be eaten was, that thus they would be under a necessity of eating blood, which was positively forbidden by the Law. Hence, it was commanded in the Law that when any beast or fowl was taken in a snare, the blood should be poured out before it was lawful to be eaten, Lev 17:13.

And from blood The eating of blood was strictly forbidden to the Jews. The reason of this was that it contained the life, Lev 17:11,14. See notes on Rom 3:25. The use of blood was common among the Gentiles. They drank it often at their sacrifices, and in making covenants or compacts. To separate the Jews from them in this respect was one design of the prohibition. See Spencer, De Ley Hebrae., p. 144, 145, 169, 235, 377, 381, 594, edit. 1732. See also this whole passage examined at length in Spencer, p. 588-626. The primary reason of the prohibition was, that it was thus used in the feasts and compacts of idolaters. That blood was thus drank by the pagans, particularly by the Sabians, in their sacrifices, is fully proved by Spencer, De Leg., p. 377-380 But the prohibition specifies a higher reason, that the life is in the blood, and that therefore it should not be eaten. On this opinion see the notes on Rom 3:25. This reason existed before any ceremonial law; it is founded in the nature of things; it has no particular reference to any custom of the Jews; and it is as forcible in any other circumstances as in theirs. It was proper, therefore, to forbid it to the early Christian converts; and for the same reason, its use should be abstained from everywhere. It adds to the force of these remarks when we remember that the same principle was settled before the laws of Moses were given, and that God regarded the fact that the life was in the blood as of so much importance as to make the shedding of it worthy of death, Gen 9:4-6. It is supposed, therefore, that this law is still obligatory. Perhaps, also, there is no food more unwholesome than blood; and it is a further circumstance of some moment that all people naturally revolt from it as an article of food.