|
Pre-Law Society and the Apostolic Decree
What can we gather from the evidence available, prior to the Law Covenant (pre-Law), that would inform as to the
view that would have been held by the pre-Law society in regard to blood? Also, how does this relate to the Apostolic
Decree statement to "abstain from blood and from things strangled"?
As is true in most areas of doctrinal interpretation, there are different schools of thought that will continuously
be debated. When it comes to the Noachian Decree and the Apostolic Decree, we will be examining three basic views
within the scope of these four sections. In THIS section we will examine TWO views.
One view states that the Noachian Decree only applies to animals "killed for food," and that Noah
would not have regarded blood to be a "sacred" fluid that belongs to God and in his jurisdiction as to
how it could be used. The thought is that the blood of animals "not killed for food" could be used in
mundane and casual ways, such as for paint, or a form of grease. It is also believed that the Noachian Decree did
not forbid the eating of animals already dead because they were not "killed" for food, therefore the
blood within the dead carcass was not in need of being removed. It could be eaten. This is centered around their
understanding of Deuteronomy 14:21:
"YOU must not eat any body 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."
This verse and its affect upon the overall scenario will be discussed in detail below.
The other view to be considered is the view that Noah would have recognized the "sacredness" that
God had attached to blood by putting it on a par or representatively equating it with the "soul" of the
animal. (Genesis 9:4) Since all souls belong to God, (Ezekiel 18:4) this representatively equal fluid to the soul
would also be viewed as belonging to God and therefore in his jurisdiction. This would forbid the mundane and casual
use of blood as it would have attached to it a special value in the eyes of God, a sacredness. As far as how the
sacred property of God should be viewed, please see the section entitled "Law, Mercy,
and the Question of Property."
There are also two main schools of thought in regard to what was addressed by the Apostolic Decree.
One view is that the Apostolic Decree was not a permanent law for Christians but was merely temporary out of
regard for Jewish sensitivities toward the things mentioned in the Decree; things sacrificed to idols, blood, things
strangled and fornication.—Acts 15:20.
The other view is that which holds the Apostolic Decree to be a binding decree upon Christians because of not
being based upon the Mosaic Law but upon the laws that were already recognized and in place in the pre-Law society,
therefore binding upon all of God's worshippers regardless of their place in history.
The focus of this presentation will not be on the two schools of thought in regards to the Apostolic Decree
as to whether it was out of regard to Jewish sensitivities or in relation to pre-Law commands and principles given
to man. For this discussion it is assumed that the position is that the Apostolic Decree refers to the commands
and principles recognized by the pre-Law society. For a thorough discussion of that, please see the section below
entitled ""Abstain from Blood" – A Command or a Concession for Jewish
Sensitivities?"
For this discussion it is assumed that the position is that the Apostolic Decree refers to the commands and
principles recognized by the pre-Law society and is therefore binding upon Christians as a matter that can affect
their salvation, as it is presented in Acts 15.
The focus of this presentation will however address the two mentioned schools of thought in regard to the Noachian
Decree as that understanding will then have direct affect upon the Apostolic Decree and its ramifications for Christianity.
The third view that will be contained in another section is the teaching that the laws on blood found in the
scriptures, whether Noachian, Mosaic or Apostolic only forbid the "eating" of blood for food, but did
not specifically forbid the taking of the blood into the body as BLOOD, rather than food. Since the scriptures
do not differentiate that aspect, this view holds that it should be up to the individual Christian whether or not
they could accept blood as "blood", either in its whole state or in regard to its major components, being
red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma. Please see the section entitled ""Abstain
from Blood" – Noachian? Jewish? Christian? Or all of the above? The Underlying Principle" for a thorough
discussion of the third view mentioned.
THE PRE-LAW VIEW OF BLOOD
The earliest mention of blood is found in the account of Abel's death. There we see that God placed the blood
of Abel as representative of his soul. Genesis 4:10: "At this he said: 'What have you done? Listen! Your brother's
blood is crying out to me from the ground.'"
From this earliest recording we can see that God considered Abel's blood as he would have considered the "soul"
of Abel, for surely, in reality, it was the soul of Abel that was crying out for justice, not his literal blood.
Does this tell us something about God's view of blood? Not explicitly, but this certainly implies how God viewed
the blood of Abel to be representatively equal to his "soul." Is the reason God viewed the blood to be
representatively equal to the soul only due to the fact that Abel was slaughtered, or is it because God viewed
blood as the soul, regardless of whether the soul had been slaughtered or not? In other words, did the blood only
represent the soul, the life in the event of untimely death or did it represent the soul, the life while the soul
was still living as well?
The language of Genesis 9:3-6 becomes important in this consideration because this is where we see explicit
stipulations concerning blood and its relation to the soul.
Genesis 9:
"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green
vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU
must not eat. 5 And, besides that, YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I
ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of
each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. 6 Anyone shedding man's blood, by man will his own
blood be shed, for in God's image he made man."
Notice the implication of verse 4 where it states "only flesh with its soul—its blood" should not
be eaten. This parallel between blood and the soul was drawn in respects to the "living" animal. In other
words, the blood represented the soul of the "living" animal while it was still IN the animal and had
to be poured out of the animal because of the fact that it represented the soul/life of the animal. In other words,
the blood was equated with the soul BEFORE the animal was ever slaughtered. This strongly implies that the blood
represents the soul, not just upon the event of slaughter, but while the animal was alive and well.
This same view is explained in more detail in the Law of Moses, not as one of the laws, but the reason
why blood was not to be eaten. It is stated there in Leviticus 17:11:
"For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for YOU
to make atonement for YOUR souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul."
Notice the statement that the "soul" of the flesh is IN the "blood." This is stated in regard
to the living animal and is given as the reason why the blood of a living animal has atoning value because it represents
"life" which is owed to God via sin. One would have to wonder how much more explicit it would have to
be stated to show that God here held blood on a par with the soul, with the intelligent life of the being. Blood
represented the "soul" of the animal, regardless of whether the animal was alive or being slaughtered.
The burden of proof would clearly lie with those who say otherwise that blood only represents life at the point
of slaughter.
For a thorough treatment of the obvious sacred nature of blood, please see the section entitled: ""Abstain
from Blood" – Noachian? Jewish? Christian? Or all of the above? The Underlying Principle."
The above findings underscore the view that God places a certain sacredness upon blood through its representational
equivalence with the soul, since "life" in general is sacred to God. What do commentators and scholars
have to say in regards to blood and the pre-Law society based upon the Noachian decree? Do they concur with the
above findings? Yes, many do.
For instance: (all emphasis added)
Smith's Bible Dictionary:
Blood
To blood is ascribed in Scripture the mysterious sacredness which belongs to life, and God reserved it to himself
when allowing man the dominion over and the use of the lower animals for food. Thus reserved, it acquires a double
power: (1) that of sacrificial atonement; and (2) that of becoming a curse when wantonly shed, unless duly expiated.
(Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 7:26; 17:11-13)
John Calvin:
4. But flesh with the life thereof , which is the blood thereof Some thus explain this passages 'Ye may not
eat a member cut off from a living animal,' which is too trifling. However, since there is no copulative conjunction
between the two words, blood and life , I do not doubt that Moses, speaking of the life, added the word blood exegetically,
288 This is apparent in the English version, where the words, "which is," are added in Italics,
showing that in the judgment of the translators, the word following was explanatory of that which preceded. - Ed.
as if he would say, that flesh is in some sense devoured with its life, when it is eaten imbued with its own blood.
Wherefore, the life and the blood are not put for different things, but for the same; not because blood is in
itself the life, but inasmuch as the vital spirits chiefly reside in the blood, it is, as far as our feeling is
concerned, a token which represents life.
ftnt 288: This is apparent in the English version, where the words, "which is," are added in Italics,
showing that in the judgment of the translators, the word following was explanatory of that which preceded. — Ed.
New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge-Volume 3:
Dietary Laws of the Hebrews
Essentially different in principle is the prohibition against consuming the blood and the fat of (clean or edible)
animals. The blood is not unclean in itself; on the contrary, it is the precious vital fluid which is offered
to God as the worthiest portion of the animal creature. Life is from God and belongs to God. On account of
its intimate relation to life, men shall not swallow the blood, but shall consecrate it to God. By this very property,
too, blood is also the appropriate means of atonement, can intercede for men, can be offered to God in their place-"
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your
souls " (Lev. xvii. 11). For this reason care must be observed in the slaying that the blood may escape. Nothing
lacerated or smothered is allowed to be eaten, because in that case the blood has not properly escaped. This practice
of avoiding to partake of blood is very ancient (Gen. ix. 4).
The Noahic Covenant—A New Beginning
(Genesis 8:20-9:17)
By: Bob Deffinbaugh, Th.M.
A New Beginning
(9:1-7)
Ray Stedman titles these verses (and verses 8-17) "Rules of the Game,"97 and I think he has truly caught
the significance of this section. A new beginning, with a new set of rules, is evident by the similarity of these
verses to Genesis chapter one.
Here (Genesis 9:1) and there (Genesis 1:28) God blessed His creatures and told them to be fruitful and multiply.
Here (Genesis 9:3) and there (Genesis 1:29-30) God prescribed the food man could eat.
There are differences, however, which indicate that the new beginning is to be different from the old. God pronounced
the original creation 'good' (cf. 1:21, 31). The world of Noah's day received no such commendation, for the men
who possessed it were sinful (8:21).
Adam was charged to subdue the earth and to rule over the animal kingdom (1:28). Noah was given no such command.
Instead, God placed in the animals a fear of man by which man could achieve a measure of control over them. (The
reason my dog obeys me—when he does—is because he fears me.)
While Adam and his contemporaries seem to have been vegetarians (Genesis 1:29-30; cf. 9:3), Noah and his descendants
could eat flesh (9:3-4). There was, however, one stipulation. They could not eat the blood of the animal, for
the life of the animal was in its blood. This was to teach man not only that God values life, but that He owns
it. God allows man to take the life of animals in order to survive, but they must not eat the blood.
One may puzzle that flesh could be eaten after the flood, but not before (or so it seems). It may be that conditions
on the earth so changed that protein was now necessary for life. More likely, man must be brought to the realization
that, because of his sin, he could only live by the death of another. Man lives by the death of animals.
Most important of all, man is taught to reverence life. Men before the fall were obviously men of violence (cf.
Genesis 6:11) who, like Cain (Genesis 4:8), and Lamech (Genesis 4:23-24), had no regard for human life. This is
more emphatically stated in verses 5 and 6 of chapter 9:
And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's
brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image
of God He made man.
The life of man was precious and belonged to God. It was God's to give and His alone to take. Animals which
shed man's blood must be put to death (verse 5, cf. Exodus 21:28,29). Men who willfully take the life of another
must be put to death 'by man' (verse 6; cf. Numbers 35:33). 98
In addition to murder, suicide is prohibited by God's command in these verses. Life belongs to God—not only
the life of animals and of others, but our own as well. We must realize that suicide is taking our life into
our own hands when God says it belongs to Him. In the words of Job, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken
away" (Job 1:21).
This passage seems to shed light on the controversial subject of abortion also. Man is not to shed the blood
of man. The life of man is in the blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:11). Aside from many other considerations, must
we not conclude that at the time a fetus has blood, it has life? Must we not also acknowledge that to shed this
blood, to destroy this fetus, is to violate God's command and to be subject to the death penalty?
New American Bible: footnote Genesis 9:4:
Because a living being dies when it loses most of its blood, the ancients regarded blood as the seat of life,
and therefore as sacred. Although in itself the prohibition against eating meat with blood in it is comparable
to the ritual laws of the Mosaic Code, the Jews considered it binding on all men, because it was given by God to
Noah, the new ancestor of all mankind; therefore the Christian Church retained it for a time. (Acts 15:20, 29)
The Jerusalem Bible: footnote Genesis 9b:
b. cf. Lv. 1:5+, but man's in particular because man was made to God's likeness, God will avenge human blood.
The New International Dictionary of New testament Theology:
Blood:
OT For the OT, as in the classical world, blood was the seat of life. The "soul," i.e. life, life
force, is in the blood (Gen.9:4; Lev. 17:11,14; Deut. 12:23) God is the sole Lord of all life. He is the sovereign
over the blood and life of men (Ezek. 18:4)…Animal blood also belongs to God. It is holy, and consumption of blood
is forbidden on pain of death.
Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words:
Blood:
Dam is used to denote the blood of animals, birds and men, (never of fish). In Gen. 9:4 it is synonymous
with "life": But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."
The high value of life as a gift of God led to the prohibition against eating "blood."
Gray's Home Bible Commentary:
Citation: – GENESIS CHAPTERS 6-9
Chapter Heading: – THE FIRST CLIMAX OF SIN
Headings: – God's Covenant with Noah
Text: - 8:20 to 9:19 What did Noah do on leaving the ark (v. 20)? How does this verse bear on 7:2? What indicates
the acceptance of his offering, and by its acceptance that of himself (v. 21)? What divine promise was associated
with this acceptance? Of course, this does not mean that no further judgment is to be visited on the earth, as
may be seen by 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2 Peter 3:10-13, and Rev. 14 to 22. Where, earlier, have we met the blessing now
bestowed on Noah and his family (9:1)? What new power over the brute creation is now put into man's hands (v. 2)?
If his dominion previously was that of love, of what was its nature to be henceforth? If his food previously was
limited to herbs, to what is it now extended (v. 3)? But what limitation is put upon it, and why (v. 4)? To quote
Pratt at this point: "We see here that from the times of the deluge the blood was constituted a most sacred
thing, devoted exclusively to God, to make expiation on the altar of sacrifice for the sins of men (see Lev.
17:11-14).
The New Unger's Bible Dictionary:
(Heb. Dam; Gk. Haima, "the circulatory life fluid of the body"). A peculiar sacredness was attached
to the blood because of the idea that prevailed of its unity with the soul. We find this distinctively
stated (Gen. 9:4): "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."…
As food. When permission was given to Noah to partake of animal food (Gen. 9:4), use of blood was strictly forbidden…
The prohibition of the use of blood has a twofold ground: blood has the soul in itself, and in accordance
with the gracious ordinance of God it is the means of expiation for human souls, because of the soul contained
in it. The one ground is in the nature of blood and the other in its destination to a holy purpose, which,
even apart from that other reason, withdraws it from a common use.
From the above scriptures and comments of numerous scholars it is easy to see why one would view blood to be
sacred fluid and in the ownership and jurisdiction of God. It is the view which best performs justice to the written
word of the scriptures as is testified by the consensus of the above scholars, regardless of what other agreements
or disagreements that they may have in other areas. To miss the "sacred" connection that is attached
to blood is to surely miss a great deal as is witnessed by the views of the above. But there is more.
As regards the teaching that Noah was not forbidden to eat dead animals found dead, the promoters of this view
pose Deuteronomy 14:21 as proof that the nations outside the Law-covenant were given specific provision to eat
carcasses.
Deuteronomy 14:21:
"YOU must not eat any body 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."
True, it cannot be denied that Jehovah made specific provision for nations outside the Law covenant to eat carcasses.
Must we therefore conclude that Jehovah also permitted Noah to eat carcasses as well and that he approved of such
consumption as well and good? A closer look reveals more to the picture.
Let us return to Genesis 9:3 and see what the scripture specifically says as to what man could consider food
in regard to animals.
Genesis 9:3:
"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case
of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU."
It is clear that God only granted permission here to eat that which was alive, of course, only after it had
been slaughtered and the blood drained from the flesh. There is no permission at all in regard to animals found
dead as the language says they were allowed to eat that which was "alive." It is therefore a great puzzlement
how one would think that eating an animal "found dead" could be in harmony with this permission to eat
only animals that were "alive." Otherwise, why even mention the fact that they had to be alive? There
would be no reason or call to do so. Surely, anyone who would hold that Noah was not allowed to eat animals found
dead has valid cause to do so in regard to this scripture. To show otherwise, after such plain language, the burden
of proof would be entirely in their camp.
Proof of how one should understand this verse is demonstrated when we substitute another word for "alive."
If we were to substitute the word "flying" in its place, what would happen? What the meaning of that
sentence therefore be? Clearly then, man would only be allowed to eat "flying" animals, once the blood
was removed. It would have naturally ruled out other animals that do not fly. Therefore, to argue that "dead"
animals could be eaten violates the structure of the sentence as presented at Genesis 9:3, regardless of what follows
in the following sentences dealing with the blood.
Please note the interesting comment of John Gill in regard to the language of verse three:
John Gill:
Verse 3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you,.... That is, every beast, fowl, and fish, without
exception; for though there was a difference at this time of clean and unclean creatures with respect to sacrifice,
yet not with respect to food; every creature of God was good then, as it is now, and it was left to man's reason
and judgment what to make use of, as would be most conducive to his health, and agreeable to his taste: and though
there was a distinction afterwards made under the Levitical dispensation among the Jews, who were forbid the use
of some creatures; yet they themselves say {k}, that all unclean beasts will be clean in the world to come, in
the times of the Messiah, as they were to the sons of Noah, and refer to this text in proof of it; the only
exception in the text is, that they must be living creatures which are taken, and used for food; not such
as die of themselves, or are torn to pieces by wild beasts, but such as are taken alive, and killed in a proper
manner: even as the green herb have I given you all things; as every green herb was given for meat to Adam
originally, without any exception, Genesis 1:29 so every living creature, without exception, was given to Noah
and his sons for food.
Nearly all scholars agree that mankind prior to the Flood were not permitted to eat animals and there is absolutely
no scriptural indication that they did. God told Adam initially that he was given the vegetation of the field to
eat. There was no mention of animals for food. To see that anywhere before the Flood is truly seeing something
that is not there. Again, the burden of proof for such a view would lie heavily in their camp. Nearly all scholars
across the board agree.
Wesley:
9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you – Hitherto man had been confined to feed only upon
the products of the earth, fruits, herbs and roots, and all sorts of corn and milk; so was the first grant,
Genesis 1:29. But the flood having perhaps washed away much of the virtue of the earth, and so rendered its fruits
less pleasing, and less nourishing, God now enlarged the grant, and allowed man to eat flesh, which perhaps man
himself never thought of 'till now.
Matthew Henry:
3. A grant of maintenance and subsistence: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, v. 3. Hitherto,
most think, man had been confined to feed only upon the products of the earth, fruits, herbs, and roots, and all
sorts of corn and milk; so was the first grant, ch. 1:29. But the flood having perhaps washed away much of the
virtue of the earth, and so rendered its fruits less pleasing and less nourishing, God now enlarged the grant,
and allowed man to eat flesh, which perhaps man himself never thought of, till now that God directed him to it,
nor had any more desire to than a sheep has to suck blood like a wolf. But now man is allowed to feed upon flesh,
as freely and safely as upon the green herb. Now here see, (1.) That God is a good master, and provides, not
only that we may live, but that we may live comfortably, in his service; not for necessity only, but for delight.
(2.) That every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, 1 Tim. 4:4. Afterwards some meats that were
proper enough for food were prohibited by the ceremonial law; but from the beginning, it seems, it was not so,
and therefore is not so under the gospel.
Easton's Dictionary:
Topics: Blood
Text:
(1.) As food, prohibited in Gen. 9:4, where the use of animal food is first allowed. Comp. Deut. 12:23;
Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-14. The injunction to abstain from blood is renewed in the decree of the council of Jerusalem
(Acts 15:29). It has been held by some, and we think correctly, that this law of prohibition was only ceremonial
and temporary; while others regard it as still binding on all. Blood was eaten by the Israelites after the battle
of Gilboa (1 Sam. 14:32-34).
Revisiting the Gray's Home Bible Commentary quotation above, another point may be highlighted:
Citation: – GENESIS CHAPTERS 6-9
Chapter Heading: – THE FIRST CLIMAX OF SIN
Headings: – God's Covenant with Noah
Text: - 8:20 to 9:19 What did Noah do on leaving the ark (v. 20)? How does this verse bear on 7:2? What indicates
the acceptance of his offering, and by its acceptance that of himself (v. 21)? What divine promise was associated
with this acceptance? Of course, this does not mean that no further judgment is to be visited on the earth, as
may be seen by 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2 Peter 3:10-13, and Rev. 14 to 22. Where, earlier, have we met the blessing now
bestowed on Noah and his family (9:1)? What new power over the brute creation is now put into man's hands (v. 2)?
If his dominion previously was that of love, of what was its nature to be henceforth? If his food previously
was limited to herbs, to what is it now extended (v. 3)? But what limitation is put upon it, and why (v. 4)?
To quote Pratt at this point: "We see here that from the times of the deluge the blood was constituted a most
sacred thing, devoted exclusively to God, to make expiation on the altar of sacrifice for the sins of men (see
Lev. 17:11-14).
The Liberty Bible Commentary (prepared by 13 Baptists scholars) footnote Gen. 9:1-7.
Prior to this time, God had said that every herb bearing seed...and every tree...to you it shall be for meat
(1:29). Although the sinful race undoubtedly violated this prescription many times, it was not until this period
of new beginnings that God actually sanctioned the eating if meat.
The Bible Reader's Companion:
"Food for you" (9:1-4). In the original Creation man and animals were given green plants for food.
(cf. 1:29-30). Only now, after the Flood, are living creatures given for food, with the single condition
that the blood not be eaten with the flesh.
Adam Clarke:
3. Every moving animal…shall be meat. There is no positive evidence that animal food was ever used before
the flood. Noah had the first grant of this kind, and it has continued to all his posterity ever since.
The above helps us to see that the view that Noah and those before him could eat animals dead or alive has no
foundation is in not in harmony with the comments and views of many respected scholars, regardless of what other
agreements or disagreements that they may have in other areas.
Since Noah was not given permission to eat animals prior to the Flood it should be easy to see that once he
was given permission, it only was in regard to animals "alive" as explained well by Gill above. Therefore,
to teach that Noah could eat dead flesh is in direct contrast to what God gave him permission to eat in Genesis
9:3. To teach otherwise presents those teachers once again, with the burden of proof as the presented view is in
holding with the natural reading of the scriptures involved, as attested to by the above scholars. But there is
more to consider.
At this point let us introduce the Apostolic Decree in regard to blood and examine it in the light of what we
have already covered and further considerations. Will it shed light upon what was allowed to the Noachian society
as well? Since it is agreed within the scope of this portion that the Apostolic Decree was a reiteration of laws
and principles already established by the Noachian society of worshippers, it certainly should shed some clarification
upon what was practiced by the Noachian society, and that it does.
In regards to blood the Apostolic Decree says to "abstain from blood and from things strangled." We
are going to take a look at the phrase "things strangled" and what it tells us in this regard. Since
it is agreed within the scope of this work that this is a binding Christian Law which expresses a binding law or
principle upon the Noachian society, one must immediately ask, where is this "stipulated" within the
Noachian society of laws and principles? Search as one may, I think the only relevant scripture that one will find
that resembles this portion of the Apostolic Decree is Genesis 9:3 where God stipulated that you had to eat only
animals that were initially "alive," not dead, as "strangled" animals would represent animals
that were NOT properly bled due to the manner in which they died, either at the hands of humans or through natural
death or untimely death at the hand of another wild beast or through accidental death such as drowning. There is
no way to limit the phrase "things strangled" to animals strangled by a human for food without draining
the blood, as we know animals can suffer "strangulation, suffocation, drowning etc." at the hands of
nature or other animals. To limit it to just animals strangled for food is again to see something that is not in
the text.
How do many commentators, scholars view the phrase "things strangled"? How did the early Christian
writers view the phrase "things strangled"? In what context did they speak of it? Such comments will
be beneficial in helping us to understand how they viewed the phrase and therefore the Apostolic Decree.
Please note the comments that we have available from the Ante Nicene church fathers and take notice of the context
in which they speak of "things strangled." (all emphasis added)
The Clementine Homilies
Homily VII
Chapter VIII.-The Service of God's Appointment.
"And this is the service He has appointed: To worship Him only, and trust only in the Prophet of truth, and
to be baptized for the remission of sins, and thus by this pure baptism to be born again unto God by saving water;
to abstain from the table of devils, that is, from food offered to idols, from dead carcasses, from animals
which have been suffocated or caught by wild beasts, and from blood;5 not to live any longer impurely; to wash
after intercourse; that the women on their part should keep the law of purification; that all should be sober-minded,
given to good works, refraining from wrongdoing, looking for eternal life from the all-powerful God, and asking
with prayer and continual supplication that they may win it." Such was Peter's counsel to the men of Sidon
also. And in few days many repented and believed, and were healed. And Peter having founded a church, and set over
it as bishop one of the elders who were with him, left Sidon.
Tertullian: THE BOOK OF APOLOGY AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
Let your sin blush before us Christians, who do not reckon the blood even of animals among meats to be eaten
118, who for this cause also abstain from things strangled, and such as die of themselves,119 that we may
not be defiled by any blood even buried within their entrails. Finally, among the trials of the Christians, ye
offer them also pudding-skins stuffed with blood, as being well assured that that, whereby ye would have them transgress,
is unlawful among them. Moreover what manner of thing is it to believe that they, who ye are assured abhor the
blood of beasts, pant for human blood? unless perchance ye have found it sweeter!
Pseudo-clementine
CHAPTER 19
THE LAW TO THE GIANTS OR DEMONS
"'These things seem good to the all-seeing God, that you Lord it over no man; that you trouble no one, unless
any one of his own accord subject himself to you, worshipping you, and sacrificing and pouring libations, and partaking
of your table, or accomplishing aught else that they ought not, or shedding blood, or tasting dead flesh, or
filling themselves with that which is torn of beasts, or that which is cut, or that which is strangled, or aught
else that is unclean. But those who betake themselves to my law, you not only shall not touch, but shall also
do honor to, and shall flee from, their presence. For whatsoever shall please them, being just, respecting you,
that you shall be constrained to suffer. But if any of those who worship me go astray, either committing adultery,
or practicing magic, or living impurely, or doing any other of the things which are not well-pleasing to me, then
they will have to suffer something at your hands or those of others, according to my order. But upon them, when
they repent, I, judging of their repentance, whether it be worthy of pardon or not, shall give sentence. These
things, therefore, ye ought to remember and to do, well knowing that not even your thoughts shall be able to be
concealed from Him.'
It is clear from these early century comments that these "fathers" associated "things strangled"
with dead carcasses, animals which have been suffocated or caught by wild beasts and those which die of themselves.
In the next few centuries we find comments and observations such as these as compiled by C. Dodgson:
C. Dodgson, Tertullian Vol. 1. Apologetic and Practical Treatises. (1842). pp.107-130. Notes A, B, C, D
NOTES TO THE APOLOGY.
Note A, p. 23. chap. ix.
THE use of blood as food, is spoken of as prohibited to Christians, in all Churches, from the earliest to the
latest times. The early authorities are, Ep. Lugd. et Vienn. l. c. Clem. Paedag. iii. 3. fin. Strom. iv. 15. Tert.
here and de Monogam. c. 5. Orig. c. Cels. viii. 30. p. 763. ed. de la Rue in Num. Hom. 16. v. fin. p. 334. Can.
Ap. 63. Minut. F. p. 300. Cyril Jer. iv. 28. xvii. 29. S. Ambrose, (apparently) in Ps. 118. Serm. 13. §. 6.
Gaudentius (de Maccab. Tr. 15. Bibl. Patr. Max. t. v. p. 967.) Ambrosiaster (ad Gal. ii. 3.) even while arguing
against the Greeks, as if tw~n pniktw~n had been interpolated by them, "it having," he says, "been
already expressed," things strangled were virtually comprised in the prohibition of blood; quia jam supra
dictum erat, quod addiderunt.]…
In the second Council of Orleans (A. D. 533.) Catholics are excommunicated, "who should use food offered
to idols, or feed on what had been slain by beasts, or died of any disease or accident." Can. 20. (Conc.
t. xi. p. 164.) The Council of Trullo, (Quini-Sext.) A. D. 692. Can. 67. rehearses, "Divine Scripture hath
commanded to abstain from blood, and strangled, and fornication, wherefore we punish proportionably [sic]108
those who for appetite's sake, by any act prepare the blood of any animal whatsoever, so as to be eatable. If
then henceforth any essay to eat the blood of an animal in any way so ever, if a clerk, let him be deposed, if
lay, excommunicated." Balsamon (ad Can. 67. p. 444.) notes that this Canon was directed against such as
maintained that they observed the injunction of Holy Scripture in that they did not eat mere blood, but food prepared
of other things with it; against which he says the Novell. 58. of the Emperor Leo, the philosopher, (A.D. 886.)
was also directed, severely punishing all such.
"Things strangled" are either mentioned with blood, (as in Clem. Strom. l. c. Orig. c. Cels.
l. c. Minut. F. l. c. Cyril J. l. c. &c.) or are counted as included in it, (as in Ambrosiaster l. c.
and Aug. c. Faust. 32. 13) "'and from blood,' i. e. that they should not eat any flesh, the blood whereof
was not poured out." There would however be the difference, that blood was forbidden by a law antecedent to
the Mosaic (which ground is given in the Const. Ap. vi. 22.) and it may have an inherent sacredness,
or there may be an inherent impropriety in eating it. Some distinction, accordingly, seems to be made; as when
S. Augustine, controverting Faustus, maintains the Apostolic decree to be temporary only, and appeals to the practice
of Christians, he instances "things strangled" only, and of these the smaller animals, in which the blood
would not be perceptible. "Who among Christians now observes this, as not to touch thrushes, or other birds
however small, (minutiores aviculas,) unless their blood had been poured out, or a hare, had it been struck on
the back of the neck with the hand, not killed so as to let out blood?" (l. c.) S. Augustine's principles
go further, but he seems to have been restrained by a sort of instinct: the instances, which he gives of the violation
of the Apostolic decree, are such as scarcely touch upon the use of "blood;" in which there would be
the least possible blood, and that unknown to those who used the food. …
In the West, it is noticed that Zacharia, Bishop of Rome, (A.D. 741.) in a letter to Boniface, the Abp. of Germany,
(Conc. t. xvii. p. 413.) forbids several animals, probably on the ground of their being things strangled. 109 Humbert,
Cardinal under Leo IX. (A. D. 1054.) in answering the charge of the Greeks, that they ate "things strangled,"
limits the defence to cases of necessity. "Nor, so saying, do we claim to ourselves, against you, the use
of blood and things strangled. For, diligently following the ancient practice or tradition of our ancestors, we
also abhor these things, so that a heavy penance is, among us, from time to time, imposed upon such as, without
extreme risk of this life, eat blood, or any thing which hath died of itself, or been strangled in water, or
by any carelessness of man; chiefly, because, in things not against the faith, we deem ancient customs, and
the traditions of ancestors, to be Apostolic rules. For as to the rest, which die either by hawking,
or by dogs or snares, we follow the Apostle's precept, 1 Cor. x. (cont. Graec. Calumn. Bibl. P. t. xviii. p. 403.)
In A.D. 1124, Otto, with the sanction of Callistus II. among other rules delivered to the newly converted Pomeranians,
ordains "that they should not eat any thing unclean, or which died of itself, or was strangled, or sacrificed
to idols, or the blood of animals," (Urspergensis Abbas ap. Baron. A. E. t. xii. p. 156. who adds, "more
after the Greek, than the Roman, practice.") The imposition of penance is mentioned in Greg. 3. Can. poenit.
c. 30. Bede de Remed. Pecc. 4. (ap. Bev. Vindic. Can. Ap. 63. p. 342. ed Cotel.) the Capitula Theodori, xv-xix.
and others there quoted, Poenitentiale Theodori, t. i. p. 26. Richard Wormaciensis, Ep. Decret. l. 19. cap. 85.
&c. (ap. Elmenhorst. ad Minut. F. l. c.) and the Concil. Wormac. c. 64, 65. (though not accounted genuine).
Beveridge sums up the account, "so that what is sanctioned by this Canon, the Western Church also very long
observed, the Eastern ever," (Cod. Can. Vind. ii. 6.) see further his notes on the Ap. Can.; Curcellaeus,
l. c. Leo Allât. l. c. Natalis Alex. H. E. t. i. Diss. xi. Suicer, v. ai]ma Elmenhorst l. c.
Please note these comments found at the following website, available on the Internet Archive:
"The Jerusalem Decree: Acts 15:23-29" by Darrell J. Pursiful (http://web.archive.org/web/20060301014439/http://members.aol.com/djpursiful/jerusalemdecrees.html)
The third prohibition deals with pniktav, or "strangled things." In the present context, this is often
understood to be improperly slaughtered animals, even though there is no direct evidence of the use of the word
in terms of Jewish slaughtering customs.(13) Actually, a distinction is made in the Old Testament
between two different kinds of improperly slaughtered animals. If an animal dies of natural causes, it is nebela
(LXX qnhsimai'on), but if it is torn to pieces it is terefa(14) (LXX qhriavlwton). In either
case, the flesh of such animals is prohibited for food (Exod 22:30; Lev 17:15; Deut 14:21). The concern is that
all the blood should be drained from the carcass of an animal. If an animal is put to death in any improper way,
the life (the blood) remains in the body, and so the beast has been "choked."(15) Philo
also reflects the connection between strangled things and blood in his condemnation of pagan pleasure-seekers:
They devise novel kinds of pleasure and prepare meat unfit for the altar by strangling and throttling (ajpopnivgonte")
the animals, and entomb in the carcass the blood which is the essence of the soul and should be allowed to run
freely away. (Spec. IV, 122)
Footnotes:
13. Barrett, p. 53.
14. m.Hul 3:1 defines as terefa any aminal which could not continue to live in a similar
state. At b.Hul 42ab we find enumerated the "eighteen defects" which render an animal terefa.
15. Hans Bietenhard, "pnivgw, ktl," TDNT VI: 457.
The point is amply demonstrated that "things strangled" was throughout the centuries regarded as including
and in the same context as animals which died of themselves, were torn by beasts or were strangled through whatever
means.
Please also note the following statements of scholars and commentators. Regardless of the reason they believe
that the Apostolic Decree was given, they share a common thought in regard to "things strangled." (all
emphasis added)
Adam Clarke:
…and from things strangled; that is; from eating them, and design such as die of themselves, or are torn
with beasts, or are not killed in a proper way, by letting out their blood; but their blood is stagnated or
congealed in the veins: the Jews might not kill with a reaper's sickle, nor with a saw, nor with the teeth, or
nail; because these (Nyqnwx) , "strangled" F1: and what was not slain as it should be, was reckoned
all one as what dies of itself; and whoever ate of either of these was to be beaten.
People's New Testament:
And from things strangled - That is, from whatever had been killed, without pouring out the blood.
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:
Page 226. An animal should be so slaughtered that its blood, in which is its life, should be allowed to pour
out. If the animal has been killed in any other way, it has been "strangled."
Thayer's lexicon:
pniktos: suffocated, strangled, an animal deprived of life without shedding its blood, Acts 15:20,29;
Acts 21:25.
New Dictionary of Biblical Theology:
Page 403: In Acts 15 the Jerusalem Council instructs the early church to abstain from blood. While it is possible
to interpret the Hebrew text of Genesis 9:4 as prohibiting only the consumption of blood from living animals the
council accepts what is apparently the current Jewish interpretation, seeing the same prohibition in Genesis 9:4
as in Leviticus and therefore making no distinction between what is forbidden to Jews and what is forbidden universally.
Therefore those who hold to the view that Noah could eat animals found dead have created a catch-22 for themselves.
They are on the horns of a dilemma. If they on one horn hold that the Apostolic Decree is a reflection of Noachian
societal laws and principles, as we would agree, then the phrase "things strangled" MUST BE one of those
laws or principles. Then on the other horn, "things strangled," as clarified for us by early Christian
writings, is only paralleled by what is stated in Genesis 9:3 where God only allows the eating of animals that
were "alive," therefore, NOT allowing things strangled and/or unbled carcass of any kind. There is therefore
a very notable relationship between the two verses Acts 15:20 and "things strangled" and Genesis 9:3
which allows only the eating of live animals.
This is a dilemma for those who wish to promote the idea that Noah could eat animals found dead and therefore
blood was not sacred unless it was in the event of the slaughter of the soul involved. "Things strangled,"
being a reiteration of an earlier Noachian societal law or principle can only find parallel in the words of Genesis
9:3. Therefore the Apostolic Decree is very instrumental in clarifying for us the fact that Noah would not have
consumed flesh already dead, therefore calling into great suspicion their interpretation of Deuteronomy 14:21 as
allowing the consumption of an unbled carcass because blood was not sacred unless it was poured out in slaughter
of the animal for food. "Things strangled" as a reflection of Noachian societal laws or principles rules
directly against that interpretation.
What then does Deuteronomy 14:21 mean? Why did God give this provision to pagan nations in and around Israel?
Again, it reads:
"YOU must not eat any body 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."
Does this prove that God does not care if people not under the Law ate the blood of an animal already dead?
A couple of thoughts should be developed in regard to this question.
First of all, we must ask: Is the fact that God allowed Israelite men to divorce their wives on nearly any ground
indicative that God does not care about the practice of divorce? Why did he allow it? Why did he specifically provide
for something that he has stated elsewhere that he hates and that Jesus later clarified as not his intentions from
the "beginning"? (Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:4-12) He obviously made a concession because
of the hard-heartedness of the Israelite people, but one could never use the allowance of divorce in the Israelite
setting as proof that God did not "hate" a divorcing. Likewise, with the statement that the non-proselyte
foreigner in the land of Israel could purchase a carcass and eat it, that would not prove that God approved of
such a practice.
God, at that point in history, was not forcing his laws and principles upon the pagan nations who were not involved
in worship to Him, even those non-proselyte temporary residents within their boundaries. Because he would allow
the eating of a carcass or otherwise unbled flesh to these pagan "peoples" outside of the realm of his
worshippers in no way can stand as evidence that he allowed it to his worshippers in the pre-Law era. If He was
willing to concede "divorce" that he "hated" even unto his own people, how can it be stated
that God's allowing a pagan to do something stands as evidence his worshippers could do it? One would surely be
employing the verse in a manner that it was not intended to be employed to force that meaning upon the text.
Therefore, everything having been considered thus far, this is what we have before us in response to the view
that Noah would have eaten animals found dead without qualm and without violation of God's laws and principles,
demonstrating, they say, that blood was only sacred in the event of slaughtering them for food, therefore promoting
the idea that blood could be used in other mundane and common ways at the discretion of the individual, as long
as he poured out the blood of an animal he killed for food.
The following is presented in a point/counterpoint fashion. The view that Noah could eat dead
flesh without consequence will be the "point." The response to that will be the "counterpoint."
1. POINT:
At Deuteronomy 14:21, God allowed Israelites to sell unbled animals found already dead to be used as food by "alien
residents" and "foreigners." The Noachian Law, but not the Mosaic Law, applied to these people since
they were part of mankind as a whole but not of Israel. The distinction here is between animals that humans had
killed for food, which were covered by the Noachian Law, and those which had been found already dead, which we
will see were not covered by the Noachian Law. Had they been covered, using them for food would have been prohibited.
COUNTERPOINT:
First of all, we must ask: Is the fact that God allowed Israelite men to divorce their wives on nearly any ground
indicative that God does not care about the practice of divorce? Why did he allow it? Why did he specifically provide
for something that he has stated elsewhere that he hates and that Jesus later clarified as not his intentions from
the "beginning"? (Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:4-12) He obviously made a concession because
of the hard-heartedness of the Israelite people, but one could never use the allowance of divorce in the Israelite
setting as proof that God did not "hate" a divorcing. Likewise, with the statement that the non-proselyte
foreigner in the land of Israel could purchase a carcass and eat it, that would not prove that God approved of
such a practice.
God, at that point in history, was not forcing his laws and principles upon the pagan nations who were not involved
in worship to Him, even those non-proselyte temporary residents within their boundaries. Because he would allow
the eating of a carcass or otherwise unbled flesh to these pagan "peoples" outside of the realm of his
worshippers in no way can stand as evidence that he allowed it to his worshippers in the pre-Law era. If He was
willing to concede "divorce" that he "hated" even unto his own people, how can it be stated
that God's allowing a pagan to do something stands as evidence his worshippers could do it? One would surely be
employing the verse in a manner that it was not intended to be employed to force that meaning upon the text.
Also dictating against that interpretation of Deuteronomy 14:21 is the fact that God only permitted the use
of animals "alive" (Genesis 9:3) for food and that the Apostolic Decree "abstain from things strangled"
was Noachian Law and the "pniktos" (things strangled) was in regard to animals which died of themselves,
were torn by beasts or were strangled through whatever means. This meaning of "pniktos" is unmistakably
demonstrated by means of early church writings. Therefore, Noah would have had no permission to eat animals found
dead or strangled, only animals that were "alive" as is clearly stated in Genesis 9:3.
2. POINT:
As recorded at Genesis 9:3, 4, God prohibited man from eating blood from animals he killed for food. Because animals
found dead had not been killed by man for food, the Noachian prohibition did not apply, even though such flesh
contained its full measure of blood. That indicates that Genesis 9:1-17 was not a case of God instituting some
special sacredness regarding blood, but rather God, by decree, was instilling His view of the sacredness of life.
Life was the sacred issue addressed to Noah, not blood. Prohibitions regarding blood only served to instill high
regard for life, even animal life. If life were not taken, no prohibition of the Noachian Law was applicable. Again,
that conclusion is illustrated in God's provision found at Deuteronomy 14:21.
COUNTERPOINT:
The erroneous position on Deuteronomy 14:21 is which all other arguments are based upon as can be seen from the
above "point." As demonstrated, Genesis 9:3 only allowed the eating of animals that were "alive."
"Abstaining from things strangled" as a reflection of a Noachian law and how it was understood to include
animals that died naturally or unnaturally without having the blood drained dictates directly against their main
premise found in Deuteronomy 14:21. The fact that God did not allow the eating of animals found dead dictates directly
against the argument that, to quote the above "point":
"As recorded at Genesis 9:3, 4 God prohibited man from eating blood from animals he killed for food. Because
animals found dead had not been killed by man for food, the Noachian prohibition did not apply, even though such
flesh contained its full measure of blood. That indicates that Genesis 9:1-17 was not a case of God instituting
some special sacredness regarding blood, but rather God, by decree, was instilling His view of the sacredness of
life. Life was the sacred issue addressed to Noah, not blood."
What they use as criteria to prove that God did not place sacredness upon blood is negated by the fact that
Noah was NOT permitted to eat animals found dead. An honest and direct reading of Genesis 9:3 definitively establishes
that. To entertain any other view is to truly place the burden of proof upon the one promoting it. Also, there
can be no mistake that God placed a representative equality upon blood to life. In the confines of Genesis 9:4
it cannot be denied that blood was put on a par with the soul as demonstrated above. God viewed Abel's "blood"
as that which cried out (Genesis 4:10), therefore the blood clearly represented Abel's soul. To shed "blood"
means to take "life," another indicator that God views blood as representatively equal to the life.
For instance, let us take the flag that represents the United States. It is merely cloth but it is held in high
esteem by those who are loyal to the United States. If one is seen to deliberately disrespect the flag, to burn,
or trash it, it is regarded as an affront against the United States, because the flag possesses a type of representative
equality to the United States.
Think of one's wedding ring and what it represents. If your mate were to lose your wedding ring by accident
not much would be thought of it, but what if they were to purposely disregard it. Perhaps throw it away or pulverize
it with a hammer. It would viewed as a direct affront against your marriage and its value in the eyes of the mate
who destroyed or purposely discarded it in some way.
Likewise, with blood. "Life" is indeed sacred, I don't think that anyone would argue against that
axiom. God views blood as representatively equal to life. Life belongs to God and so does blood. Disregard for
blood would be viewed as disregard for life just like purposeful disregard for ones wedding ring would be regarded
as purposeful disregard for the marriage it represents. Life is "sacred." Therefore blood as that which
God views as representatively equal to "life/soul" carries a certain sacredness to it which must be respected,
and according to the Apostolic Decree that respect amounts to "abstaining from blood." We cannot use
blood in a fashion that has not been allowed by God either through his word or what we might observe in a divinely
constituted arena. To take upon ourselves a use of blood not precedented by those two factors is to disregard God's
ownership of that sacred fluid.
3. POINT:
The conclusion is that the Noachian Law, which was the basis for the Apostolic Decree, applies only to blood obtained
by a person's killing a creature. While the Mosaic Law might provide grounds for prohibiting blood transfusions,
the Noachian Law does not provide any grounds for coming to that conclusion, because donated blood is not obtained
by killing humans or animals.
COUNTERPOINT:
Consider the ramifications of the above. If all that the Noachian Law covered was the "blood" of animals
killed for food, what would prevent the pre-Law worshipper from simply going out and draining off a quart of blood
from one of his "living" livestock and drinking it because he liked the taste of it? The animal would
not have been killed for food and it would not involve eating the "flesh" with the "soul."
Therefore, the pre-Law individual would have every right to use the blood of a living animal in any fashion that
he would want to use it. He could drink it, use it for paint, use it for lubricant, for dye, for blood pudding
or any other number of uses. Is that really what these promoters of this interpretation would want to say? Would
God allow such cruelty upon the living animal? Why do we not see God speak of this provision anywhere in the scriptures
prior to the Law Covenant? Surely, since God told Noah that he could not eat the "blood" equated with
the "soul," Noah would not have had an ordinary use for "donor" (unknowingly donated by the
animal) blood as if it was a common, ordinary fluid. He "knew" it represented "life" to God
and it would have a certain sacredness attached to it because of that, just as there is certain "sacredness"
attached to the wedding ring in the mind of the mate, that ring representing the sacredness of marriage.
The above question has been defended by some in this doctrinal camp as stating that the pre-Law individual would
not be allowed to drink the blood of the living animal because Genesis 9:4 states the animal must not have the
soul in the flesh to be eaten, but this does not answer the question asked. The question does not deal with the
eating of the "flesh" with the "soul/blood" in it, it deals with just the drinking of "donor"
blood from a living animal, not the eating of the flesh. They must admit that their view of the Noachian Decree
would clearly allow the tapping and drinking of a living animal's blood without consequence. And, if they find
exception with that, how then can the transfusion of living "donor" blood be held in a different light
in view of the Apostolic Decree which more than just "don't eat" blood but further, "Abstain
from blood"?
It is admitted by these ones that the Mosaic Law would provide grounds for the prohibition of blood transfusions
because of the fact that God attaches sacredness to it. This sacredness actually parallels the very same language
that God used to Noah. God stated the grounds for the sacredness of blood by saying in the Law: "For the soul
of the flesh is in the blood." How is this any different then the equation that God makes with the "blood"
and "soul" in Genesis 9:4? There is no difference at all!
In regard to all that has been said, it has been amply demonstrated that to teach Noah could eat animals found
dead and therefore blood has no special sacredness to it does not conform to what the scriptures indicate about
the situation. Will this convince that doctrinal camp of their error? I think I can guarantee that it will not
convince them as we know how doctrinal differences generally go. What has been demonstrated however, is that the
doctrinal understanding concerning the sacredness of blood, as held by Jehovah's Witnesses and some others, is
solidly founded and that to teach otherwise leaves that teacher with the burden of proof, and a large burden at
that.
For a continuation of POINT/COUNTERPOINT discussions, please see the section entitled "Blood:
Point/Counterpoint."
Next article: "Abstain from Blood" – A Command or a Concession
for Jewish Sensitivities?
Back to main article
|
