iam1me
Active Member
One of the earliest commandments in the Bible given to all mankind as part of the Covenant with Noah, and one of the only dietary restraints to persist under the New Covenant is to not consume blood. The commandment is also repeated many times throughout the OT.
Genesis 9:4-6 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. 6 “Whoever sheds human blood,by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind."
Leviticus 3:17 “‘This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.’”
Acts 15:19-20 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Unlike other dietary constraints that would merely make one ceremonially unclean, the consumption of blood was a severe offense meriting excommunication.
Leviticus 7:26-27 And wherever you live, you must not eat the blood of any bird or animal. 27 Anyone who eats blood must be cut off from their people.’”
Leviticus 17:13-14 “‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.”
When Jesus preached about the Eucharist in John 6, even the disciples are recorded as saying that this is a hard teaching and that many stopped following Jesus after this. Given severity of the commandment, and the strangeness of being told to eat your teacher's flesh and blood, this reaction seems pretty natural. We kind of take it for granted now - but it would have been an abhorrent thought to an observant Jew. One might go so far as to say that this was presented in an intentionally provocative manner.
Of course, in laying out the scriptures like this I do see a loophole: the commandments are specifically about hunting and eating the flesh of animals. Providing the term 'animal' is contextually understood to not include humans (which would be murder and thus prohibited by other parts of the Law), then we can interpret this as not being applicable to the Eucharist.
Another would be that many Protestants don't view the Eucharist as literal, but merely symbolic - though that would not cover Catholics and such. However, taking this approach would again suggest that the symbolism is intentionally provocative.
The reason that Leviticus 17:14 gives for not consuming blood is because the life of every creature is its blood. This is also, of course, the very reason we are told we must partake of his blood, and are given life. For Christ is a life-giving spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45).
Given the above, I don't believe that the Eucharist is in violation of the Law (whether interpreted literally or symbolically), though I do think it was presented extremely provocatively and that this fact is rather underappreciated now a days.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree with my analysis as for why the Eucharist isn't in violation of the commandment not to consume blood? Or do you perhaps have a better one? What do you think about the provocative nature of this teaching?
Genesis 9:4-6 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. 6 “Whoever sheds human blood,by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind."
Leviticus 3:17 “‘This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.’”
Acts 15:19-20 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Unlike other dietary constraints that would merely make one ceremonially unclean, the consumption of blood was a severe offense meriting excommunication.
Leviticus 7:26-27 And wherever you live, you must not eat the blood of any bird or animal. 27 Anyone who eats blood must be cut off from their people.’”
Leviticus 17:13-14 “‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.”
When Jesus preached about the Eucharist in John 6, even the disciples are recorded as saying that this is a hard teaching and that many stopped following Jesus after this. Given severity of the commandment, and the strangeness of being told to eat your teacher's flesh and blood, this reaction seems pretty natural. We kind of take it for granted now - but it would have been an abhorrent thought to an observant Jew. One might go so far as to say that this was presented in an intentionally provocative manner.
Of course, in laying out the scriptures like this I do see a loophole: the commandments are specifically about hunting and eating the flesh of animals. Providing the term 'animal' is contextually understood to not include humans (which would be murder and thus prohibited by other parts of the Law), then we can interpret this as not being applicable to the Eucharist.
Another would be that many Protestants don't view the Eucharist as literal, but merely symbolic - though that would not cover Catholics and such. However, taking this approach would again suggest that the symbolism is intentionally provocative.
The reason that Leviticus 17:14 gives for not consuming blood is because the life of every creature is its blood. This is also, of course, the very reason we are told we must partake of his blood, and are given life. For Christ is a life-giving spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45).
Given the above, I don't believe that the Eucharist is in violation of the Law (whether interpreted literally or symbolically), though I do think it was presented extremely provocatively and that this fact is rather underappreciated now a days.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree with my analysis as for why the Eucharist isn't in violation of the commandment not to consume blood? Or do you perhaps have a better one? What do you think about the provocative nature of this teaching?
Last edited: