The Eucharist and Commandment to not drink Blood

[Rival]

Really? Are there any Jewish sources you can recommend that elucidate the passage? I don't feel that an accurate interpretation just from the English translation, but open to learning more if there are more details to be found in the Hebrew.

Jewish translation with commentary from Rashi,

But, flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat.

flesh with its soul: He prohibited them [to eat] a limb [cut off from] a living creature; i.e., as long as its soul is in it, you shall not eat the flesh. — [from Sanh. ad loc.] [i.e., if the limb is cut from the animal while it is alive, it is forbidden to be eaten even after the animal expires.]
with its soul, its blood: As long as its soul is within it.
flesh with its soul…you shall not eat: This refers to a limb of a living creature. And also, its blood, you shall not eat-This refers to blood of a living creature. — [from above source]

 

[iam1me]

Jewish translation with commentary from Rashi,

But, flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat.

flesh with its soul: He prohibited them [to eat] a limb [cut off from] a living creature; i.e., as long as its soul is in it, you shall not eat the flesh. — [from Sanh. ad loc.] [i.e., if the limb is cut from the animal while it is alive, it is forbidden to be eaten even after the animal expires.]
with its soul, its blood: As long as its soul is within it.
flesh with its soul…you shall not eat: This refers to a limb of a living creature. And also, its blood, you shall not eat-This refers to blood of a living creature. — [from above source]

OK, so you are basing this assertion more upon a late commentary from a respected Rabbi than on the text itself. I would personally require a more in depth exegesis to justify that position before I could seriously consider it, but I can see where you are coming from. Thanks

How about the commandments in, say, Leviticus? Would you interpret them similarly? After all, they similarly talk about blood being the life of a creature.

 

[Rival]

OK, so you are basing this assertion more upon a late commentary from a respected Rabbi than on the text itself. I would personally require a more in depth exegesis to justify that position before I could seriously consider it, but I can see where you are coming from. Thanks

How about the commandments in, say, Leviticus? Would you interpret them similarly? After all, they similarly talk about blood being the life of a creature.

'But flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat' I think is pretty clear that the animal is still alive, even without commentary.

Jewish people are not allowed to eat blood. I think that is pretty clear in those verses.

 

[iam1me]

Jewish people are not allowed to eat blood. I think that is pretty clear in those verses.

I agree, though I'd say the passage in Genesis looks similarly clear

 

[Rival]

I agree, though I'd say the passage in Genesis looks similarly clear

How would you interpret this to mean a dead animal though?

But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

This is not a commandment against eating blood, as the first part of the verse shows us; it is about what kind of meat one cannot eat. So it begins with that aspect first, i.e, you shall not eat a certain kind of meat. What kind of meat? The kind that still has its lifeblood; that is, the kind that is taken from a living animal.

Perhaps you need more context as this may seem odd to a modern reader.

Back in the day, people used to cut off living animals' limbs and eat them while the creature was still alive, so to preserve the rest of the meat it could offer as there were no ways to keep it fresh. They'd then cut off another limb. You see why this is not alright.

My Artscroll commentary to this verse includes this passage, emphasis theirs,

[Rabbi] Hirsch rendering the verse in consonance with the Sages in Sanhedrin 59, stresses that blood from a living animal is not forbidden a Noachide... Following the cantillation...Hirsch concludes that the verse cannot be rendered other than flesh, while its blood is in its soul, you shall not eat - clearly referring to the living state of the animal and prohibiting flesh from a living animal.

 

[sojourner]

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?

There are three reasons why your “analysis” remains unconvincing. #1, you’re oversimplifying the commandment not to eat blood. Observant Jews do eat blood. “Lifeblood” is from a living animal, or one that’s still warm.
#2, the Protestant idea of “symbol only” only came about with the Reformation, so 1500 years of Christian thought centering on transubstantiation or consubstantiation is being ignored. #3, you’re ignoring the cultural influences that are not necessarily explicit in the Bible.

 

[Rival]

Observant Jews do eat blood.

What?

Leviticus 7:26-27,

And you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether from birds or from animals. Any person who eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from its people.

 

[sojourner]

What?

Leviticus 7:26-27,

And you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether from birds or from animals. Any person who eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from its people.

Blood sausage. We had a kosher deli in town, and they served blood sausage.

 

[Rival]

Blood sausage. We had a kosher deli in town, and they served blood sausage.

'We are told in the Torah that we are not allowed to eat blood because blood is the soul and the life force of the animal. That is why if there is blood in an egg, we must throw it away. We are not allowed to eat it.'

Keeping Kosher Explained for Kids - NSW Board Of Jewish Education

'In order for meat and poultry to be kosher there are additional requirements. These include slaughter in accordance with Jewish law and removal of blood via salting or roasting.'

What Is Kosher? | Kosher Definition | KLBD Kosher Certification

'Furthermore, the Torah forbids eating the blood of an animal or bird, therefore, it is necessary to extract the blood from the kosher slaughtered meat or liver.'

Kashering Liver | STAR-K Kosher Certification

It's not kosher.

 

[sojourner]

'We are told in the Torah that we are not allowed to eat blood because blood is the soul and the life force of the animal. That is why if there is blood in an egg, we must throw it away. We are not allowed to eat it.'

Keeping Kosher Explained for Kids - NSW Board Of Jewish Education

'In order for meat and poultry to be kosher there are additional requirements. These include slaughter in accordance with Jewish law and removal of blood via salting or roasting.'

What Is Kosher? | Kosher Definition | KLBD Kosher Certification

'Furthermore, the Torah forbids eating the blood of an animal or bird, therefore, it is necessary to extract the blood from the kosher slaughtered meat or liver.'

Kashering Liver | STAR-K Kosher Certification

It's not kosher.

It was advertised as a kosher deli. I knew Jewish people who ate there. And they ate the blood sausage.

 

[Rival]

It was advertised as a kosher deli. I knew Jewish people who ate there. And they ate the blood sausage.

Well I hate to break it to you, but they were wrong to do so. It's clearly written in Torah that blood is forbidden and it must be drained from meat. I don't know what that Deli was about but it was not kosher.

The biblical ban on eating animal blood, explained

Consuming Blood: Ask the Rabbi Response

The Aish Rabbi Replies:
One thing I can say about anti-Semitism is that it is highly irrational.

The Torah forbids eating the blood of an animal or bird (Leviticus 7:26).

Although we never know the ultimate reason for God's instructions, the Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvot 147-148) provides possible explanations for the prohibition of eating blood. He quotes Nachmanides to the effect that "you are what you eat." Since the “soul” of a creature is in the blood, consuming this blood can cause the coarseness of the animal to be passed over to the consumer. It is not proper for a divine human soul to mix with the crass animal soul.

In order to extract the blood, the entire surface of meat must be covered with coarse salt. It is then left for an hour on an inclined or perforated surface to allow the blood to flow down freely. The meat is then thoroughly washed to remove all salt. Meat must be koshered within 72 hours after slaughter so as not to permit the blood to congeal. (An alternate means of removing the blood is through broiling on a perforated grate over an open fire.)

 

[Jedster]

@Rival

I have no doubt one can find bacon substitute as well *** blood sausage..wait I'll ask google..both are vegan. I also don't believe that 'real' blood pudding is sold an any kosher-licensed shop

ETA a friend of mine used to own a famous Jewish restaurant/deli in England. It lost it's license because some non-kosher meat was found on the premises.(It was actually some halal meat stored there by a driver).

Restaurateur loses case but keeps reputation

 

[iam1me]

How would you interpret this to mean a dead animal though?

But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

This is not a commandment against eating blood, as the first part of the verse shows us; it is about what kind of meat one cannot eat. So it begins with that aspect first, i.e, you shall not eat a certain kind of meat. What kind of meat? The kind that still has its lifeblood; that is, the kind that is taken from a living animal.

Perhaps you need more context as this may seem odd to a modern reader.

Back in the day, people used to cut off living animals' limbs and eat them while the creature was still alive, so to preserve the rest of the meat it could offer as there were no ways to keep it fresh. They'd then cut off another limb. You see why this is not alright.

My Artscroll commentary to this verse includes this passage, emphasis theirs,

[Rabbi] Hirsch rendering the verse in consonance with the Sages in Sanhedrin 59, stresses that blood from a living animal is not forbidden a Noachide... Following the cantillation...Hirsch concludes that the verse cannot be rendered other than flesh, while its blood is in its soul, you shall not eat - clearly referring to the living state of the animal and prohibiting flesh from a living animal.

It's a commandment not to eat meat that has its lifeblood in it. That's pretty straight forward in my mind. Don't consume meat with blood in it.

There's a leap in logic to go from the commandment saying don't eat meat with blood in it to saying don't eat meat sliced from a living animal. That idea isn't present in the verse at all, at least on the surface.

 

[iam1me]

There are three reasons why your “analysis” remains unconvincing. #1, you’re oversimplifying the commandment not to eat blood. Observant Jews do eat blood. “Lifeblood” is from a living animal, or one that’s still warm.
#2, the Protestant idea of “symbol only” only came about with the Reformation, so 1500 years of Christian thought centering on transubstantiation or consubstantiation is being ignored. #3, you’re ignoring the cultural influences that are not necessarily explicit in the Bible.

Regarding point #1, I'm open to evaluating this idea. However, all blood is "lifeblood" from a scriptural standpoint. Blood = life.

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.”

Deuteronomy 12:23 But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat.
​

Regarding point #2, you are mistaken. There were Church Fathers long before the Reformation who regarded it as symbolic. We must not treat what become Catholic/Orthodox tradition as if that is how things were from the start of the church. The Church had far more diversity before the fourth century when they decided to try to consolidate everything and standardize every aspect of the faith.

More to the point, my analysis doesn't hinge upon either a literal or symbolic Eucharist (though I think the latter more logical).

Regarding point #3, I'm open to hearing about relevant cultural influences that may influence the analysis.

 

[74x12]

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?

The Eucharist is symbolic of what Jesus did on the cross and by believing in Him you may "drink His blood" and "eat His flesh". Not just on the Passover meal.

Grape wine can never be the actual blood of Jesus. It's just symbolic ... what Jesus meant by drinking His blood was to receive the new Testament in his blood.

 

[wizanda]

When Jesus preached about the Eucharist in John 6

The Gospel of John is deliberately made up by the Sanhedrin to put off the Jews from accepting Yeshua.

Do you agree with my analysis as for why the Eucharist isn't in violation of the commandment not to consume blood?

The scriptures say all ravenous beings are to be removed in the Lake of Fire (Isaiah 34), and is very specific in Revelation 16:6, that the vampires who think by drinking the blood of the prophets shall gain eternal life, shall instead be deleted from reality.

The Gospel of John deliberately goes opposite to Noahide Laws in its rewrite of the Last Supper (Genesis 9:4-6), to test who the Law breakers are.

In the Synoptic Gospels Yeshua told his disciples to only drink water, least they lose their reward (Matthew 10:42, Mark 9:41), and at the last supper in the Synoptic Gospels he specifically address the disciples (yet they've purposefully mistranslated it to match Paul and John's blood drinking communion), telling them to not drink of the vine, until the coming of the kingdom (Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18) - where we will not drink alcohol any more, as it literally causes brain damage.

If people drink the blood of an offering, and especially human blood figuratively in Jewish Law, it is a direct violation of most policy, and a reason to be removed from reality by God.

In my opinion.

 

[iam1me]

The Eucharist is symbolic of what Jesus did on the cross and by believing in Him you may "drink His blood" and "eat His flesh". Not just on the Passover meal.

Grape wine can never be the actual blood of Jesus. It's just symbolic ... what Jesus meant by drinking His blood was to receive the new Testament in his blood.

I would tend to agree it is symbolic - that's always been my position. That said, verses like this are a bit more forceful on the matter:

John 6:53-59 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.​

I wouldn't mind doing a more in depth study of such verses

 

[iam1me]

The Gospel of John is deliberately made up by the Sanhedrin to put off the Jews from accepting Yeshua.

Lolz, perhaps a topic for another thread. I don't think that the case myself. And at any rate, the Synoptic Gospels all contain the teaching of the Eucharist as well, even if not so early. Regardless of whether it was introduced early or late in Jesus' teachings, it would have still been a difficult teachings for observant Jews.

The scriptures say all ravenous beings are to be removed in the Lake of Fire (Isaiah 34), and is very specific in Revelation 16:6, that the vampires who think by drinking the blood of the prophets shall gain eternal life, shall instead be deleted from reality.

The Gospel of John deliberately goes opposite to Noahide Laws in its rewrite of the Last Supper (Genesis 9:4-6), to test who the Law breakers are.

In the Synoptic Gospels Yeshua told his disciples to only drink water, least they lose their reward (Matthew 10:42, Mark 9:41), and at the last supper in the Synoptic Gospels he specifically address the disciples (yet they've purposefully mistranslated it to match Paul and John's blood drinking communion), telling them to not drink of the vine, until the coming of the kingdom (Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18) - where we will not drink alcohol any more, as it literally causes brain damage.

If people drink the blood of an offering, and especially human blood figuratively in Jewish Law, it is a direct violation of most policy, and a reason to be removed from reality by God.

In my opinion.

Lolz, lots of conspiracy theories here. Jesus made and drank alcohol - why wouldn't it be in available in the coming kingdom?

 

[wizanda]

Jesus made and drank alcohol - why wouldn't it be in available in the coming kingdom?

When John is made up, there wasn't turning water into wine.

There is no death in the Messianic Age, and alcohol is rotten fruit.

the Synoptic Gospels all contain the teaching of the Eucharist as well

The Last Supper did not contain the Eucharist; Yeshua showed to share the showbread in remembrance, similar to an Essene passover, and he told his disciples not to drink wine again after.

As saying John, and Paul established the drinking of wine as part of the Eucharist; which is a direct defilement of the Law.

In my opinion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think the main problem is that this is supposed to be HUMAN flesh and blood. The idea of eating and drinking human flesh and blood sounds disgusting.

I think thats only for those gullible enough to believe that somehow wafers and wine turns into flesh and blood.

Still, its pretty a pretty macabre and bizzare thought no doubt.

Christianity the cannibal cult.