Romans 14 describes law on blood as "conscience matter"?

by M.J. 16 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  M.J.

  Romans 14 shows that some Jewish Christians in Rome abstained from meat, while others did not. Apparently there was a bit of a tussle between the two camps. Now the big question is why exactly did some feel they needed to abstain from meat?

  Many texts attest to the fact that when pressed, Jews ate only vegetables to avoid contact with the impurity that was associated with the local pagan-prepared meat, which was not prepared according to Jewish law. Some examples can be found in Judith 12:1-3 (Deuterocanon), Daniel 1:8-10, & Tobit 1:10-12 (Deuterocanon):

  "Now when I was carried away captive to Nineveh, all my brethren and my relatives ate the food of the Gentiles; but I kept myself from eating it, because I remembered God with all my heart.

  Additionally, whenever there was a question regarding Levitical cleanliness in the mind of a Jew, many would entirely avoid eating with gentiles altogether as Peter presumably did in Gal 2:12, and questioned for not doing so in Acts 11:3.

  Josephus wrote about Jewish preists imprisoned in Rome, around 61 CE: "Even in affliction, they had not forgotten the pious practices of religion, and supported themselves on figs and nuts".

  So we can see that refraining from meat had to do with the unavailability of meat prepared according to Jewish law. The central feature of such meat preparation was the prescribed draining of the blood.

  Yet Paul states in Romans 14 that it's not ultimately what a person eats that matters, "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking" (v17). At the same time, he encourages both sides to respect the other's conscience on the matter.

  Notably, Paul does not provide any conditions or caveats here.

  Any thoughts?

  (Romans 14: 1-4) Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats,for God has accepted him.
  Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

  (Romans 14:13-17)
  Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
• 

  jwfacts

  The same point is made at 1 Corinthians 10:25-33

  “ Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating , making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it.” 27 If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. 28 But if anyone should say to YOU: “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person’s conscience? 30 If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks? 31 Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory. 32 Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, 33 even as I am pleasing all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they might get saved.”

  Acts 15 was not given as a binding law, but rather to encourage abstainance for the sake of not stumbling others. In 1 Cor Paul shows that these practices are not wrong in themselves.
• 

  M.J.

  Good point. Meat from animal sacrifice is explained by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 & 10 as not strictly forbidden--end of story--despite the ruling in Acts 15. Of course, the rule on idol meat is given together with the rule on blood.

  Paul notes that you can still eat "things sacrificed", if you do it with the understanding that idols are nothing. Further, you must be sure that such an act would not stumble other Christians who do not have such a full understanding of the matter. So clearly the prohibitions given in Acts 15 are not not to be taken in a be-all end-all sense...

  It's interesting to note that the blood prohibition comes sandwiched in between two dietary rules which are clearly addressed as part of 1 Corinthians 10, as mentioned by jwfacts.

  "that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication..."

  Of course as this was given there was absolutely no concept of the rule on blood to be anything BUT a dietary rule.

  These three dietary rulings are all subject to further clarification and interpretation, as provided by Paul, who states that it's not really about what you eat or drink. Thus by no means should the wording in Acts be interpreted so strictly as to justify the sacrife of life.
• 

  Scully

  One of the things I like about the passages at Romans 14 (aside from the verses later on that get into festivals and observances) is how it describes the strict abstinence from eating meat as a weakness of faith, while the actions of a person with strong faith will not be hindered by artificial rules.

  Really then, the JWs who are sticklers on the matter of rules - on blood, on marrying only in the Lord, on anything - show just how WEAK their faith is.
• 

  Nathan Natas

  It always seemed to me that the WTB&TS made a big mistake by catering to the lowest common conscience denominator and thereby effectively letting those with "weak faith" (see Scully's post above) dictate the actions of an entire congregation.

  Those with weak faith should be helped along and strengthened, or failing that, ignored.
• 

  proplog2

  In the 7th Chapter of Mark, Jesus was attacking the hypocrisy of the Pharisees by explaining the real basis of the Law

  vs 14: Listen to me, all of you, and get the meaning. (15) There is nothing from outside a man that passes into him that can defile him; but the things that issue forth out of a man are the things that defile a man.

  Apparently the disciples were beginning to get the meaning of what he said but wanted clarification vs 17.

  Jesus repeats what he said in vs 15 with a little bit of elaboration.

  Finally, Mark sums up the meaning in the final part of vs 19 "Thus he declared all foods clean"

  Nothing that you eat with the intent of nourishing your body is "unclean". That would include shell-fish as well as blood.
• 

  Forscher

  Oh yes

  I actually got into a debate on that one elsewhere on the net. There is another facet of the issue addressed by the Bible in the gospels. Remember how the GB always states that there is no justification for breaking a "law of God," even when to do so means a person might die? Well, David broke God's law when he was fleeing from king Saul. He went to the tent of the meeting and took bread which by God's law was reserved for only the priests. No others could lawfully eat it (1 Sam. 21: 1-6). In the 12 chapter of Matthew, Jesus spoke approvingly of what David and his men had done. So that refutes the Watchtower contention that God's laws are so immutable that they cannot be transgressed, even to save a life.

  By the way, don't let the foregoing give you the impression that I thing the GB is correct on the whole issue to begin with. I don't

  Forscher
• 

  timetochange

  Paul's difference with James illustrates well the fact that the early Christians were not under a ruling governing body arrangement. Freedom of conscience was practiced and Paul certainly encouraged it. Early Christianity was fluid and open to private interpretation.

  As for the blood discussion I don't have the reference in front of me right now but in the Law an arrangement was made for allowing a family who found their farm animal in the field already dead to not have to suffer the loss of the meat. They could go ahead and eat the meat but needed to recognize the law on blood by remaining unclean for a time and possibly some other requirement I don't remember exactly. But the point is there was no death penalty involved. On the contrary there was a recognition of the families circumstance and they were not made to suffer the loss.

  To paraphrase Jesus, how much more value is a man than a sheep! The Society's blood policy is more demonic than anything else.
• 

  Frank75

  As for the blood discussion I don't have the reference in front of me right now but in the Law an arrangement was made for allowing a family who found their farm animal in the field already dead to not have to suffer the loss of the meat. They could go ahead and eat the meat but needed to recognize the law on blood by remaining unclean for a time and possibly some other requirement I don't remember exactly. But the point is there was no death penalty involved. On the contrary there was a recognition of the families circumstance and they were not made to suffer the loss.

  TTC:

  Here is the reference you are talking about.

  (Leviticus 17:14-15) . . ." 15 As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean.

  Also they were allowed to sell it to avoid the financial loss too.

  (Deuteronomy 14:21) 21 "YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.. . .

  How would that make sense if the law on animal blood was binding on all mankind descended from Noah?

  Leaving the dubs has taught many of us how little we knew of what the bible actually says.

  Frank75
• 

  Narkissos

  It seems very clear that either Paul had never heard of the so-called "apostles' decree" or he didn't regard its contents as authoritative.

  This casts some historical doubt about the story in Acts 15 which does present it as a normative rule, providing a modus vivendi for Jewish and Gentile Christians everywhere. In Acts 21:25 a rather candid "redactional slip" has James informing Paul about the decree (whereas in chapter 15 Paul was supposed to be present and a bearer of the message). The rule is certainly an old tradition but it was probably local (it may be of interest that only Syria and Cilicia are mentioned in 15:23, plus Lycaonia in 16:4); its echoes in Revelation (where "things sacrificed to idols" are definitely not a "conscience matter") also point to Asia Minor.