http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2276
Must Christians Today “Abstain from Blood”?
The first-century followers of Christ faced several difficult
challenges. Among the most problematic were the cultural differences
separating the Jewish Christians from the Gentile Christians. Due to
their deep respect for the Law of Moses, many of the early Jewish
Christians felt that a faithful follower of God must believe in and obey
Christ, but also keep certain aspects of the Mosaic Law, like
circumcision. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, adamantly opposed this
idea, maintaining that the Law was nailed to the cross and was no longer
in force. The other Bible writers concurred. But many Christians in the
early church were confused on the issue. Due to this confusion, Paul
and Barnabas, along with the elders of the Jerusalem church and the
apostles, convened to discuss the issue (Acts 15). During the
discussion, the apostle Peter recounted the conversion of the Gentile
Cornelius (Acts 15:6-11). Paul and Barnabas then testified to the
miracles that God had worked among the Gentiles through their ministry
(15:12). And James, the Lord’s brother, explained that the Old Testament
prophesied that the Gentiles would be allowed into the church. From
reading the text, it is clear that purpose of the meeting in Jerusalem
was not to vote on a policy, but to discover the Holy Spirit’s position
on the issue.
The council concluded that God had opened the door of faith in Christ
to the Gentiles, apart from any adherence to the Law of Moses. The
council then wrote a brief letter to be circulated among the Gentile
churches in which the council stated: “For it seemed good to the Holy
Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these
necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from
blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep
yourselves from these, you will do well” (Acts 15:29).
The inspired statement from the Jerusalem council presents an
interesting text for Christians in the 21st century. Do these rules
still apply today? Were they for the Gentiles then, and adjusted
afterward by later revelation to the inspired Bible writers? If they
still apply, how would a 21st century Christian practically obey the
command to avoid “things strangled,” since the details of the slaughter
and preparation of store-bought items such as chicken, beef, ham, and
turkey are rarely mentioned or known by the general public? These and
other questions require an intense, honest look into the inspired
council’s letter and its ramifications for today.
SEXUAL IMMORALITY
It is generally understood among commentators and biblical historians
that the Jerusalem council had pagan, idolatrous feasts in mind when
issuing the statement in Acts 15. Often, pagan worship included the
sacrificing and eating of animals, sometimes with the drained blood
being offered as a “course” in the meal. These festivities also
generally included sexual participation by the guest in any number of
immoral ways. Coffman noted: “Idol feasts were shameful debaucheries,
marked by the most vulgar and immoral behavior.... In fact, it is
possible that all four of these restrictions relate to idol worship”
(1977, p. 299). Dennis Gaertner, in his commentary on Acts, noted that
the pagan worship practices were most likely in view in the prohibition
against sexual immorality and food sacrificed to idols, and were
possibly in view in the command to abstain from blood, since “in some
pagan practices blood was drunk apart from the meat” (1993, p. 240-241).
Therefore, in order to understand the context of the four prohibitions
of the council, one must understand their connection to pagan idolatrous
practices.
In regard to the instruction for the Gentiles to abstain from sexual
immorality, the New Testament is abundantly clear in other places that
such was
inherently sinful (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:9-11;
Hebrews 13:4; Revelation 21:8). There was never a time when sexual
immorality was permitted for a faithful follower of God. Even though
pagan cultures considered such immorality to be “part of life,” it was
not to be permitted or tolerated in the life of a Christian, regardless
of his or her cultural background.
THINGS OFFERED TO IDOLS
The letter to be circulated among the Gentile converts also included
the instruction for them to “abstain from things offered to idols.” This
is a clear reference to the meat that pagans would sacrifice to an idol
and then eat as a part of their feasts. The interesting aspect of this
prohibition is that it is not the case that eating meat offered to idols
was
inherently sinful. In fact, the apostle Paul
qualifies and elaborates on the instruction to abstain from meat offered
to idols in other places. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul explained that there
is nothing inherently sinful about eating meat offered to an idol. He
stated: “Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we
know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other
God but one.... But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we
eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse” (vss.
4,8). Paul then explained to the Corinthian Christians that if an
unbeliever invited them to his house, they should have no problems
eating the meat that the unbeliever served them, asking no questions
about whether the meat was offered to an idol (1 Corinthians 10:27).
Thus, it is clear that to eat meat that was offered to an idol was not
inherently sinful. Paul then added, however, that if the Corinthians
were informed that the meat was offered to an idol, they should avoid
eating it, if doing so would “offend” those who might have a problem
with it (1 Corinthians 10:28; 8:10-13; Romans 14:21). The mindset,
attitude, and intent of the one eating meat offered to idols were the
pertinent factors involved in the actions, not any inherently sinful
qualities of meat offered to idols. From this discussion, then, we
understand that the prohibition to abstain from things offered to idols
was not a blanket condemnation of an inherently sinful practice, but was
instead conditioned on circumstances, attitude, and intent. Taking
Paul’s discussion of things offered to idols into account, one is forced
to conclude that it could be permissible, under certain circumstances,
for Christians today to eat meat offered to idols.
BLOOD AND THINGS STRANGLED
We have seen that the council’s letter to the Gentiles contained a
prohibition against the inherently sinful practice of sexual immorality.
We have also seen that the instruction to abstain from things offered
to idols was not a condemnation of an inherently sinful practice. The
question to be answered, then, is to which category do the prohibitions
to abstain from things strangled and from blood belong? Is it the case
that eating blood or meat from animals that were strangled is an
inherently sinful practice that Christians today must avoid? Or is it
the case that such was a circumstantial prohibition that was and is
conditioned upon the circumstances?
First, we need to understand the connection between “things strangled”
and “blood.” Lenski noted: “‘From a thing strangled and from blood’ may
be considered together since both alike involve blood. An animal that
was not butchered but snared and killed by strangling still had blood in
it” (1961, p. 616). Coffman also combines the terms in his discussion
(1977, p. 300). The Gentiles would have understood this prohibition to
include
drinking the blood of a slain animal or
eating the meat of an animal whose blood was not drained out. [
NOTE:
Some have suggested that eating a steak cooked “rare” or “medium rare”
without cooking it completely would be “eating blood.” This would not
have been the understanding of the Gentile Christians. Nor, in a
practical sense, would it be possible to avoid “blood” in any meat,
since it would be impossible to remove all traces of blood. If this
prohibition meant that any trace of blood must be avoided, then no meat
could have been eaten by the Gentiles.]
Is the act of eating or drinking animals’ blood sinful for Christians
today? Lenski argues that it is not. He suggests that the prohibition
from the council was made so that the Gentiles would not offend their
Jewish Christian brethren. He states that the Jewish Christians were
horrified at the thought of eating or drinking blood and that the
“Gentile Christians were asked to respect this feeling and thus from
motives of brotherly love, and from these alone, to refrain from eating
blood and meat that still had its blood” (1961, p. 616). Lenski seems to
base his conclusion on the idea that the prohibition against eating
blood originated with the Mosaic instructions against the practice. But
such is not the case. The prohibition against eating or drinking blood
predated the Law of Moses by several hundred years. Following Noah’s
exit from the ark, God explained to him that he and his descendants
could eat animals. God said to him: “Every moving thing that lives shall
be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs”
(Genesis 9:3). God did, however, provide a single regulation regarding
the consumption of animal flesh. God said: “But you shall not eat flesh
with its life, that is, its blood” (9:4). Thus the command to avoid the
consumption of blood was given several hundred years before the Mosaic
Law was instituted.
The Law of Moses instructed the Israelites to avoid eating or drinking
blood. Leviticus 17:14 states: “Therefore I said to the children of
Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all
flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.” Also, Moses wrote
that the Israelites could eat animals like deer or gazelle, but
concerning their consumption, he wrote: “Only you shall not eat the
blood; you shall pour it on the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:16).
If the prohibition against eating blood in Acts 15 is binding, it would
show that in every age—the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian—the
eating of blood has been for forbidden and is inherently sinful. Coffman
maintains this view. Concerning Genesis 9:4, he stated: “This makes it
clear that the denial of blood as food to man antedates the Mosaic law.
Thus, they are wrong who see these restrictions as a symbolical binding
of the Law on Christians. The authority they have for Christians of all
ages derives neither from Moses’ law nor from the commandment of Noah,
but from the authority of the Holy Spirit...” (1977, p. 300). The late
Guy N. Woods noted God’s instructions concerning blood to Noah and to
the Israelites under Moses, and said: “We have seen that the ‘apostles
and elders’ at Jerusalem, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
extended this prohibition into the Christian age; thus, in every age God
has forbidden his people to eat blood and things strangled” (1976, p.
240).
If it is the case that the eating of blood is inherently sinful, how
can it be differentiated from eating meats offered to idols, which was
not inherently sinful, since they appear in the same list? One response
to such a question would be that we only know that eating meat offered
to idols was not inherently sinful because New Testament passages such
as 1 Corinthians 8, 10 and Romans 14 shed further light on the practice.
If these passages were not included in the New Testament, then we would
be forced to conclude that eating meat sacrificed to idols was
inherently sinful and still prohibited for Christians. Since there are
no passages that add information to the prohibition against eating blood
or things strangled, and it is included in every age (Patriarchal,
Mosaic, and Christian) it seems the most logical course is to conclude
that the prohibition is still binding on Christians today.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Blood Transfusions?
If the prohibition against blood and things strangled is binding, what
are the practical implications? First, the idea in Acts 15:29 of
“abstaining” from blood implies that the
eating or
drinking
of blood is to be avoided, but it says nothing about other types of
contact with blood. God’s injunction to Noah explicitly stated that
blood was not to be eaten, as did the Mosaic instructions. The immediate
context of Acts 15:29 informed the Christians to “abstain from things
offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled.” To “abstain” from
things offered to idols simply meant not to eat them. This same meaning
applied to blood and meat that was strangled without being drained.
Certain religious groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, have
contended that taking blood into the body in any way violates Acts
15:29. They argue that receiving a blood transfusion violates the
injunction to abstain from blood. Their official Web site states: “What
of transfusing blood?.... [T]hinking people in past centuries realized
that the biblical law applied to taking blood into the veins just as it
did to taking it into the mouth” (“Blood...,” 2006).
However, the conclusion maintained by the Jehovah’s Witnesses to extend
the prohibition of Acts 15:29 to blood transfusions is simply not
justified by the evidence for two primary reasons. First, the text and
all related texts in the Old Testament deal specifically with
consumption
by mouth of large
quantities of blood from an animal. The Gentile Christians in Acts 15
would have certainly understood the prohibition to be dealing with the
consumption of blood by mouth. Second, the physical processes of the
body in receiving human blood into the veins and consuming large
quantities of animal blood that would go to the stomach are vastly
different. A blood transfusion in which matched human blood is injected
into the veins of another human to aid in healing is hardly comparable
to drinking a pint of goat’s blood. To demand that Acts 15:29 means
never taking any kind of blood into the body for any reason in any way
is going
far beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).
Eating Habits
Because the prohibition against blood referred specifically to eating
blood or things strangled, we must try to understand how it relates to
our eating habits today. Since we know that the Israelites and Gentiles
ate animal meat before and after the prohibitions of Acts 15:29, and we
know that it is physically impossible to remove all traces of blood from
meat, then we must conclude that the consumption of blood in small
quantities (such as in a rare or medium rare steak) is not what is
banned. The prohibition is against eating or drinking large quantities
of animal blood. Dishes such as blood pudding or blood sausage would
seem to fall into this category, as well as any dishes cooked in large
quantities of blood, or containing such.
As for determining which animals have been strangled and not drained of
their blood, we must understand that the focus was on the quantity of
blood remaining in the meat of the animal. It was not the fact that the
animal was strangled that kept it from being eaten, but the fact that it
was never drained of its blood. Apparently, there was a visible,
recognizable difference in the minds of the first-century Gentiles
between the meat that was from an animal that was drained and the meat
from an animal that was not drained. If Acts 15:29 is binding, and Paul
told the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 10:25 to “[e]at whatever is sold
in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake,” then he
must not have included meat from animals that had not been drained of
their blood in 1 Corinthians 10:25. We must conclude, then, that
avoiding meat from things strangled means avoiding meat that has a
definite, visible amount of excessive blood readily distinguishable from
drained meat. [
NOTE: A cursory study of standard
meat processing procedures in the United States and other nations shows
that the vast majority (if not all) of the animals butchered and sold
in major meat markets such as grocery stores are drained of their blood
(“Rosenthal...,” 2006; “Best Practices...,” n.d.).] Thus, the practical
implications of Acts 15:29 indicate that consuming blood or meat from
things strangled takes place when a large quantity of blood is drunk or
consumed in dishes where blood is a key, recognizable ingredient.
CONCLUSION
The inspired Word of God contains everything that pertains to life and
godliness (2 Peter 1:3). It is so comprehensive that it has the ability
to completely equip humans for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Because of its import, all commandments and instructions in it need to
be seriously analyzed and critically considered in light of their
potential present-day application. Biblical regulations that apply today
must be obeyed in order for a person to be assured of an eternal home
in heaven (Matthew 7:21-23). Four prohibitions are made in Acts 15:29
that were specifically aimed at first-century Gentile converts. These
prohibitions included avoiding eating blood and meat not drained of its
blood. Taking both Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures into
account, it seems that since the time of Noah, eating or drinking animal
blood has been something God forbade. The prohibition to avoid the
consumption of blood, as found in Acts 15:29, is not altered, adjusted,
or explained in other books of the New Testament. Thus, it seems most
reasonable to conclude that the prohibition remains binding today.
REFERENCES
“Best Practices For Beef Slaughter” (no date), [On-line],
URL: http://www.bifsco.org/uDocs/bestpracslaught12_05.pdf.
“Blood—Vital For Life” (2006), [On-line],
URL: http://watchtower.org/e/hb/article_01.htm.
Coffman, James Burton (1977),
Commentary on Acts (Abilene, TX:
ACU Press).
Gaertner, Dennis (1993),
Acts (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961),
The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
“Rosenthal
HACCP Plans” (2000), [On-line],
URL: http://meat.tamu.edu/HACCP/porkslaughter.pdf.
Woods, Guy N. (1976),
Questions and Answers: Open Forum, Volume 1 (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University), Vol. 1.
