Is It Ok To Consume Food That Has Blood?

[((Michael))]

Just the other day in the chat, a visitor had asked the question if it is ok to consume blood in regards to food. This question caused quite a stir after I quoted some verses in Acts 15 and 21. This isn't a kosher vs unclean issue for me. I read in both accounts of the council held at Jerusalem that 4 things were decided to write the new Gentile converts to abstain from; abstain from things contaminated by idols, from things strangled, fornication, and from blood ( not in this order ). I think I quoted:

Leviticus 17: ¹⁰ ‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.

After I quoted from Leviticus, I was asked ( paraphrasing here ), Why am I trying to put people under the law? I want to add, that I only quoted Leviticus after I quoted:

Genesis 9:4"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

The commandment in Genesis was before the covenant on Sinai. Why is quoting from Leviticus frowned upon these days? This wasn't even somebody suggesting to another they couldn't eat pork. This was about consumption of blood. I think the word "Legalistic" has been tossed around so much that if anybody is striving to live like Christ, they are viewed as one who is trying to earn their way to heaven by works. Leviticus also addresses stealing, lying, murder, and same sex marriage ( just to name a few ). Since we are in a new covenant, does that mean none of these things apply? Now I very much might be wrong in how I'm reading the passages about blood. If somebody can show me in scripture, I would appreciate it.
 

[missmuffet]

12 minutes ago, ((Michael)) said:

Just the other day in the chat, a visitor had asked the question if it is ok to consume blood in regards to food. This question caused quite a stir after I quoted some verses in Acts 15 and 21. This isn't a kosher vs unclean issue for me. I read in both accounts of the council held at Jerusalem that 4 things were decided to write the new Gentile converts to abstain from; abstain from things contaminated by idols, from things strangled, fornication, and from blood ( not in this order ). I think I quoted:

Leviticus 17: ¹⁰ ‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.

After I quoted from Leviticus, I was asked ( paraphrasing here ), Why am I trying to put people under the law? I want to add, that I only quoted Leviticus after I quoted:

Genesis 9:4"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

The commandment in Genesis was before the covenant on Sinai. Why is quoting from Leviticus frowned upon these days? This wasn't even somebody suggesting to another they couldn't eat pork. This was about consumption of blood. I think the word "Legalistic" has been tossed around so much that if anybody is striving to live like Christ, they are viewed as one who is trying to earn their way to heaven by works. Leviticus also addresses stealing, lying, murder, and same sex marriage ( just to name a few ). Since we are in a new covenant, does that mean none of these things apply? Now I very much might be wrong in how I'm reading the passages about blood. If somebody can show me in scripture, I would appreciate it.
 

Yes, it is ok.

Question: "What does the Bible say about eating/drinking blood?"

Answer: In Acts 10, the apostle Peter began to realize just how different this new Christianity was from Judaism. While praying on a rooftop, waiting for lunch, he had a vision. A sheet was lowered from heaven, containing many different types of animals. A voice encouraged him to eat. Peter balked, realizing that some of the animals in the sheet were forbidden under Jewish law. Three times the sheet lowered, and three times Peter refused.

The vision had a dual purpose. The most obvious was that, under the New Covenant, the ceremonial rules about dietary restrictions had been lifted. Christians are to be set apart and recognized by their love (John 13:35), not by their lunches. The second, and deeper, meaning was that Christ’s salvation was open to Gentiles just as it was to Jews. Immediately after the vision, Peter received a visit by messengers from a (Gentile) centurion named Cornelius who was ready to accept Christ.

Carnivorous Christians know and enjoy the message of Peter's vision. But the vision does not directly address the subject of eating blood, unless that’s included in the revocation of kosher law.

The Bible’s first prohibition against consuming blood comes in Genesis 9:2-4, where God tells Noah, "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." This prohibition was most likely a ban on eating raw blood (i.e., uncooked meat). For the first time, animals were an allowable food source, and God was making sure that Noah did not eat them raw. A Jewish Targum comments on this verse: "But the flesh which is torn from a living beast at the time that its life is in it, or which is torn from a beast while it is slain, before all its breath is gone out, ye shall not eat."

Later, the prohibition of Genesis 9:4 is iterated in the Law of Moses. Leviticus 17:14 gives the reason behind command: “For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life.”

It’s important to understand that New Testament believers in Christ have freedom from the Law, and we are to “stand firm” in that liberty (Galatians 5:1). We are not under the Law but under grace. “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink” (Colossians 2:16). So, eating a rare steak, blood sausage, blood pancakes, blood soup, or blood tofu may not be palatable to all Christians, but it is allowable.

There is another passage to consider. In Acts 15, a question arose in the early church concerning what was necessary for salvation. Specifically, did a Gentile need to be circumcised in order to be saved (verse 1)? The issue came up in the church in Syrian Antioch, which had a mixture of Jewish and Gentile converts. To address this important issue, the leaders of the church met in Jerusalem for the very first church council. They concluded that, no, Gentiles did not need to follow Mosaic Law; circumcision is not part of salvation (verse 19). However, in verse 29, the leaders compose a letter with these instructions for the Gentiles in Antioch: “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.” At this point, we must keep the context foremost in our minds. These four commands from Jerusalem to Antioch all dealt with pagan practices associated with idolatry. Most, if not all, of the Gentile converts in Antioch were saved out of paganism. The church leaders were exhorting the new Gentile believers to make a clean break from their old lifestyles and not offend their Jewish brothers and sisters in the church. The instructions were not intended to guarantee salvation but to promote peace within the early church.

Later, Paul dealt with the same issue. It is perfectly all right to eat meat offered to idols, he says. “Nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14). But if eating that meat causes a brother in Christ to violate his conscience, Paul “will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall” (1 Corinthians 8:13). This was the same concern the Jerusalem leaders had in Acts 15: if the Gentile believers ate meat with the blood in it, the Jewish believers might be tempted to violate their conscience and join them in the feast. One’s conscience is a sacred thing, and we dare not act against it (see 1 Corinthians 8:7-12 and Romans 14:5).

In short, ordering your steak rare or well done is a matter of conscience and of taste. What enters the mouth does not make us unclean (see Matthew 15:17-18). Eating black pudding may not appeal to everyone, but it is not a sin. We live under grace. We have liberty in Christ. Others may have different convictions about food and drink, and in that case we voluntarily limit our freedom in order to better serve them and God. “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Romans 14:19).

http://www.gotquestions.org/eating-drinking-blood.html

[((Michael))]

20 minutes ago, bopeep1909 said:

Yes, it is ok.

Question: "What does the Bible say about eating/drinking blood?"

Answer: In Acts 10, the apostle Peter began to realize just how different this new Christianity was from Judaism. While praying on a rooftop, waiting for lunch, he had a vision. A sheet was lowered from heaven, containing many different types of animals. A voice encouraged him to eat. Peter balked, realizing that some of the animals in the sheet were forbidden under Jewish law. Three times the sheet lowered, and three times Peter refused.

The vision had a dual purpose. The most obvious was that, under the New Covenant, the ceremonial rules about dietary restrictions had been lifted. Christians are to be set apart and recognized by their love (John 13:35), not by their lunches. The second, and deeper, meaning was that Christ’s salvation was open to Gentiles just as it was to Jews. Immediately after the vision, Peter received a visit by messengers from a (Gentile) centurion named Cornelius who was ready to accept Christ.

Carnivorous Christians know and enjoy the message of Peter's vision. But the vision does not directly address the subject of eating blood, unless that’s included in the revocation of kosher law.

The Bible’s first prohibition against consuming blood comes in Genesis 9:2-4, where God tells Noah, "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." This prohibition was most likely a ban on eating raw blood (i.e., uncooked meat). For the first time, animals were an allowable food source, and God was making sure that Noah did not eat them raw. A Jewish Targum comments on this verse: "But the flesh which is torn from a living beast at the time that its life is in it, or which is torn from a beast while it is slain, before all its breath is gone out, ye shall not eat."

Later, the prohibition of Genesis 9:4 is iterated in the Law of Moses. Leviticus 17:14 gives the reason behind command: “For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life.”

It’s important to understand that New Testament believers in Christ have freedom from the Law, and we are to “stand firm” in that liberty (Galatians 5:1). We are not under the Law but under grace. “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink” (Colossians 2:16). So, eating a rare steak, blood sausage, blood pancakes, blood soup, or blood tofu may not be palatable to all Christians, but it is allowable.

There is another passage to consider. In Acts 15, a question arose in the early church concerning what was necessary for salvation. Specifically, did a Gentile need to be circumcised in order to be saved (verse 1)? The issue came up in the church in Syrian Antioch, which had a mixture of Jewish and Gentile converts. To address this important issue, the leaders of the church met in Jerusalem for the very first church council. They concluded that, no, Gentiles did not need to follow Mosaic Law; circumcision is not part of salvation (verse 19). However, in verse 29, the leaders compose a letter with these instructions for the Gentiles in Antioch: “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.” At this point, we must keep the context foremost in our minds. These four commands from Jerusalem to Antioch all dealt with pagan practices associated with idolatry. Most, if not all, of the Gentile converts in Antioch were saved out of paganism. The church leaders were exhorting the new Gentile believers to make a clean break from their old lifestyles and not offend their Jewish brothers and sisters in the church. The instructions were not intended to guarantee salvation but to promote peace within the early church.

Later, Paul dealt with the same issue. It is perfectly all right to eat meat offered to idols, he says. “Nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14). But if eating that meat causes a brother in Christ to violate his conscience, Paul “will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall” (1 Corinthians 8:13). This was the same concern the Jerusalem leaders had in Acts 15: if the Gentile believers ate meat with the blood in it, the Jewish believers might be tempted to violate their conscience and join them in the feast. One’s conscience is a sacred thing, and we dare not act against it (see 1 Corinthians 8:7-12 and Romans 14:5).

In short, ordering your steak rare or well done is a matter of conscience and of taste. What enters the mouth does not make us unclean (see Matthew 15:17-18). Eating black pudding may not appeal to everyone, but it is not a sin. We live under grace. We have liberty in Christ. Others may have different convictions about food and drink, and in that case we voluntarily limit our freedom in order to better serve them and God. “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Romans 14:19).

http://www.gotquestions.org/eating-drinking-blood.html

Thank you for your response. I see 4 simple commands given for the new Gentile converts because there was a sect claiming they needed to be circumcised and follow the 1st covenant ( at least that's how I read it ). Fornication and Idolatry are among this very short list of 4 things to follow. I suppose one can argue that fornication isn't allowed because it only applies to those who were soliciting pagan temple prostitutes at that time. Or that since we are under grace, idolatry is now ok. When Paul said all things were lawful, I think that passage along with a few others get taken out of context. I feel strong about this, because of the issues I see in a lot of mainstream churches turning grace into a license to do whatever. I'm not suggesting that is you, I don't know you. But you quoted the vision Peter had before he met with Cornelius. For me its not an issue about pork, it's about blood. If I'm wrong on this, it wouldn't be the first time. But I don't think anything was presented to suggest those 4 commands do not apply today : abstain from things contaminated by idols, from things strangled, fornication, and from blood.  

Edited April 19, 2016 by ((Michael))

[Jayne]

For me, I have to look at the big picture.

When God told Noah that he and that small, small band of humanity could start eating meat, he gave them the directive to not eat the flesh with the blood still in it.  What does that mean?  I think it means he wanted them to drain the blood as much as possible.  Why?  In my opinion, to respect the life of the animal being eaten.  God protected the animals by giving them a fear of mankind.

If humans were going to eat meat after the Flood, the animals needs to have an instinct to flee man.

The same directives were given in the Law and the early church leaders as has already been stated continued the practice.

Of course, I don't believe this is talking about cooking steaks or hamburgers bought at the butcher and already drained.  Even with those cuts of meat you will STILL have a small amount of blood.

I think this is talking about draining as much as you can before eating out of respect for life God provided for us to eat.  The life is in the blood.  We need to respect that.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Jayne

[Ezra]

1 hour ago, bopeep1909 said:

Yes, it is ok.

How can it be OK when it is specifically forbidden to Christians (just as it was to Noah and mankind)? "Things strangled" still have blood within.

ACTS 15:19-29

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas;namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 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.

[missmuffet]

1 hour ago, Ezra said:

How can it be OK when it is specifically forbidden to Christians (just as it was to Noah and mankind)? "Things strangled" still have blood within.

ACTS 15:19-29

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

 

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

 

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

 

22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas;namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

 

23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

 

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

 

25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

 

26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

 

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

 

29 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.

 

I would rather absorb the words of "got questions". And it all depends on what is meant by "strangled".Your post looks like legalism to me.

[Qnts2]

2 hours ago, Jayne said:

For me, I have to look at the big picture.

When God told Noah that he and that small, small band of humanity could start eating meat, he gave them the directive to not eat the flesh with the blood still in it.  What does that mean?  I think it means he wanted them to drain the blood as much as possible.  Why?  In my opinion, to respect the life of the animal being eaten.  God protected the animals by giving them a fear of mankind.

If humans were going to eat meat after the Flood, the animals needs to have an instinct to flee man.

The same directives were given in the Law and the early church leaders as has already been stated continued the practice.

Of course, I don't believe this is talking about cooking steaks or hamburgers bought at the butcher and already drained.  Even with those cuts of meat you will STILL have a small amount of blood.

I think this is talking about draining as much as you can before eating out of respect for life God provided for us to eat.  The life is in the blood.  We need to respect that.

The meat bought from a butcher does not have the blood drained as much as it can be.

I was involved in this discussion on another forum, and there was a person who owned a small grocery store with a meat counter. They said that larger butcher shops have a high powered grinder. To efficiently grind from meat to make hamburger, it is better to grind the meat while frozen. If frozen, the blood is frozen with the meat, and the larger stores gain additional money because the blood adds to the weight giving a higher yield. Her store did not have the kind of grinder which could grind solidly frozen meat, so they had to grind unfrozen which means a lot of blood was left over at the bottom of the container. That means the blood is in the meat. So, buying meat from a regular grocery store means it contains blood and not just a little blood.

I take the stand that the prohibition against blood is told to Noah and his family, the first people to eat meat. It is repeated throughout scripture and is repeated in the NT. Therefore, it is a New Covenant prohibition. 

To be fair, there is one statement in the NT which would indicate the consuming blood is alright. The blood in the veins, enters the meat when an animal is killed and becomes fixed in the meat after 72 hours, unable to be removed. Meat in grocery stores is over 72 hours old unless they are connected to a slaughter house so methods such as salting or cooking in a broiler or BBQ, do not remove most of the blood. The blood remains in the meat. In the NT, it mentions animals sacrificed to idols and in one place it says it is ok to eat this meat. The meat has not had the blood drained and would likely be over 72 hours old, so that meat likely has the blood still in it.

But, I still believe blood is prohibited.

[Ezra]

15 hours ago, bopeep1909 said:

I would rather absorb the words of "got questions". And it all depends on what is meant by "strangled".Your post looks like legalism to me.

GotQuestions has some questionable interpretations also, and should never be considered the final authority. Anything that does not suit us is *legalism*.  So you are actually making the Holy Spirit responsible for *legalism*!  That is a very serious error.

16 hours ago, Ezra said:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

 

[kwikphilly]

Blessings,,,,

    There is a very good book out by Dr Jordan Rubin,the"Makers Diet",,,,,,he refers to Scripture to share Gods Diet with us as it is Written,,,,,,you may find it very interesting

    WE have to remember that legalistic or not ,,,,,WHO would no better what is the best & healthiest for our bodies,,,,,,simple,the ONE Who Created us! God did not tell man to eat this thing & that thing just for something to say or to begrudge us anything that might be quite tastey but for what will keep the machine running most effectively,soundly ,efficiently & for a very long time

   There is much to do with increased risk of anaerobic bacteria, which are apparently more dangerous/deadly than their aerobic counterparts, living in blood. God knew this long before man did & He always has our best interest in Mind,as He first Loved us,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, try to consider these things also

     Is it okay,no it is not okay as Ezra clearly pointed out,,,,,does God make allowances for our stiff neckedness,stubborn minds & ignorant decisions,,,,,,well yeah,He has

Quote

King James Bible
Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

                                                          1Cor 8:13

Michael,,,,,,seek God & ask Him to Reveal His Will to you,,,,,,,,,,,,,God shows us what pleases Him if we earnestly want to please Him & forsake the desires of our own hearts                                                                   With love-in Christ,Kwik

    

[missmuffet]

1 hour ago, Ezra said:

GotQuestions has some questionable interpretations also, and should never be considered the final authority. Anything that does not suit us is *legalism*.  So you are actually making the Holy Spirit responsible for *legalism*!  That is a very serious error.

 

You can call it a serious issue if you would like. But I will take the theology of "got questions" over your theology on this.