Eating of blood prohibition specifically not forbidden for non-Jews

by peacefulpete 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete
    Deut 14:21 You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people consecrated to YHWH...

    It seems quite self evident the ritual of blood letting prior to eating meat was understood by the Deuteronomist as binding only on Jews.

  • Abraham1
    Abraham1

    When Jesus said: "Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them," (Mark 7:15) he dismissed all such restrictions on use of blood. It means they were all human teachings. (Mathew 19:4-8)

  • Pronger1
    Pronger1

    Talk about abuse of scripture. Matthew 19:4-8?

    Not eating blood was part of the covenant with Noah that predated the Mosaic Covenant.

    Genesis 9:3–4 (NRSV): 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4 Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

    The Noachian covenant did not restrict unclean animals from the diet, but eating blood was certainly part of it.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    See the topic posted by cofty on the sacredness of blood and the discussions posted on that thread.

    One interesting point is that when an Israelite ate a dead animal that died of natural causes, he was not bloodguilty for doing so. Therefore, what about taking a pint of blood from an animal or human without killing anybody and consuming the blood putting it into a person’s vein for medical reasons, is such blood sacred to God or is it the same as that of a dead animal?

  • smiddy3
    smiddy3

    Was`nt there an exception to the rule ? with King David `s soldiers who in fear of starving ate the flesh without blood letting ?

    And they were not guilty of violating God`s law ? and went unpunished ?

    Offhand I can`t remember the scripture reference.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    And they were not guilty of violating God`s law ? and went unpunished ?

    1Sam 14:32. Here is how WT sees it in a questions from readers article:

    So they may have been making some attempt to drain the blood. (Deuteronomy 15:23) Yet, in their exhausted, famished state, they did not hang up the slaughtered carcasses and allow adequate time for normal blood drainage.”


  • truth_b_known
    truth_b_known

    Paul's words in Acts about "Keep abstaining from blood" is a reference to bloodshed, murder, and not eating blood.

  • TD
    TD

    Therefore, what about taking a pint of blood from an animal or human without killing anybody and consuming the blood putting it into a person’s vein for medical reasons, is such blood sacred to God or is it the same as that of a dead animal?

    The symbolism attached to blood was transferred by Jesus' own command to the sacraments of Communion (i.e. Emblems of Memorial) Sacrifices no longer have any sin atoning value whatsoever and it therefore cannot reasonably be argued that the blood of such is sacred. --Not if you're Christian and literate.

    Even were that not the case, the transfusion of blood is physically, morally, ethically and ontologically distinguishable from the consumption of blood and it is the fallacy of equivocation to attempt to lump them into the same category.

    Jehovah's Witnesses themselves recognize this distinction in a number of transfusion scenarios today and the scope of the prohibition has dwindled over years down to just the intact, cellular components of blood.

    Unfortunately, this has introduced a number of contradictions that are not defensible from a medical or scientific standpoint, which makes arguing in favor of the prohibition a thorny proposition.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Good comments but no one addressed Deut 14:21. Clearly a Jewish merchant could sell unbled meat to nonJews.

    Wouldn't this strongly suggest it was understood as a prohibition for Jews only? Couldn't then a JW work in a blood bank by this logic?

    As a larger point, a more fundamental point is how to interpret Gen 9:4:

    4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."

    Jewish commentators and Rabbis understand the primacy is on the life not the blood itself. IOW what was prohibited was eating animals with life still in them. Removal of the blood ensured that the animal was dead and not blasphemous to eat.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Regarding the actual eating of blood: Can anything that goes into the mouth of a Christian defile him? Ro.14:14 (???)

    Assuming that there is no one around with a weak conscience, should Christians ask questions of conscience about meat served in the home of a pagan idol worshiper who is known to eat things strangled? I Cor.10:27

    Why do you think Jews could eat animals found dead in their fields (unbled) with relative impunity. They would merely have to wash their clothes and be unclean until evening.

    Leviticus 11:38,39 - "If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches its carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of its carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening."

    Note: It took JWs over 70 years (right up to 1945) to find rules restricting blood use when they are so obvious to JWs now. It's interesting that Jesus appointed the F&DS in 1919 when JWs were still being encouraged to work for the Red Cross as alternative service and give and receive transfusions when necessary?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit