by M.J. 13 Replies latest watchtower bible
What was the reasoning behind that instruction in Acts 15:20,29?
Was it simply due to the fact that an animal dying by strangulation would retain more blood than various forms of slaughter?
Was it in reaction to a ritual or practice that had connections to idolatry at the time?
Does this mean that a JW stranded out in the wilderness should chose starvation over eating animals caught in a snare?
A clear view of the Jewish view is better glimpsed in the LAW OF THE SONS OF NOAH.
"Things strangled" is shorthand for the prevention of all cruelty to animals and failure to bleed a dead animal before using them for food..
and from "blood" actually refers to MURDER.
Abstaining from "blood" is not incurring the bloodfeud from murder which devasted (and continues to devastate) warring families and tribes in the Middle East.
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!Noahide Laws
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, searchThe Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: ??? ????? ??? ??, Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach), often referred to as the Noahide Laws are a list of seven moral imperatives which, according to the Talmud, were given by God to Noah as a binding set of laws for all mankind. [1] According to Judaism any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as a Righteous Gentile and furthermore only a non-Jew who carefully abides by these laws is assured of a place in the world to come, the Jewish concept of eternal life [2] . Adherents are often called B'nei Noah (Children of Noah) or Noahides and may often network in Jewish synagogues.
The Noahide Laws were predated by six laws given to Adam in the Garden of Eden. [3] Later at the Revelation at Sinai the Seven Laws of Noah were succeeded by the Ten Commandments and the other laws of the Torah. According to Judaism, the 613 mitzvot or "commandments" given in the written Torah, as well as their reasonings in the oral Torah, were only issued to the Jews and are therefore only binding upon them, since they are regarded as having inherited the obligation from their ancestors. Furthermore it is actually forbidden by the Torah for non-Jews on whom the Noahide Laws are still binding, to elevate their observance to the Torah's mitzvot. [4]
Whilst several Jewish organizational bodies such as Chabad form the loose frame of a Noahide community, Noahides tend to congregate less than followers of other religions, thus their exact numbers are unknown. Noahides exist predominantly in the United States, South America and Europe. The Seven Laws of Noah have officially been recognised in the United States Congress:
- "Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded; Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws." [5]
Contents
[ hide ][edit] The Seven Laws
The seven laws listed by the Talmud are [6]
- Prohibition of Idolatry: - You shall not make for yourself an idol.
- Prohibition Murder: - You shall not murder.
- Prohibition of Theft: - You shall not steal.
- Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: - You shall not commit adultery.
- Prohibition of Blasphemy: - You shall not blaspheme.
- Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals: - Do not eat the flesh of a living animal.
- Requirement to have just Laws: - You shall set up an effective government to police the preceding six laws.
I dont know if this is true or not, but I remember reading that an animal that is going through trauma such as strangulation would be releasing alot of adrenaline, and this somehow taints the meat.
Howdy M.J. Since nobody is answerin my good buddy....I'll take a crack at it.
Keep in mind that Acts Chap 15 is dealing with Judaizer teachers at Antioch. The jews were still very big on the law of Moses even though Jesus ended the law and so as not to stumble the jews, much of the info was written on their behalf.
The use of blood was prohibited by the Mosaic law, and for wise reasons this prohibition was extended to Gentiles. The Roman epicures were wont to drown fowls in wine and then use the flesh. It was a common thing to drink wine mingled with blood. The only way to strike at these savage practices was to prohibit its use.....hence the prohibition at Acts 15:20,29
Remember, under the new law all things were lawful....but not ALL things were advantagious. (See Gumby 5:21-23)
Hope this helps bro.
Gumby
"The Washington Post obtained enforcement documents from 28 slaughter plants and exposed horrific acts of cruelty that occur on a daily basis in slaughterhouses throughout the U.S. The Washington Post also interviewed dozens of current and former federal meat inspectors and slaughterhouse workers who admitted to routinely witnessing the strangling, beating, scalding, skinning, and butchering of live, fully conscious animals."
Source: http://www.api4animals.org/192.htm
Why does the Society make a big deal about the blood part of Acts 15 but don't seem to care about the possibility of strangled meat sold in our supermarkets?
'Why does the Society make a big deal about the blood part of Acts 15 but don't seem to care about the possibility of strangled meat sold in our supermarkets?'
I would guess that they would use these scriptures in 1 Corinthians 10 to answer this:
25 Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it.” 27 If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. 28 But if anyone should say to YOU: “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person’s conscience? 30 If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks?
Ain't it always nice for a Bible contradiction to come to the rescue?
(Paul's recommendations are at variance from Acts 15, especially non-prohibition of eating food sacrified to idols)
hehe... gotta love the bible.
I can't confirm it as I don't have a WT library, but I'm sure they've used 1 Corinthians 10 to say not to go around worrying if blood will be in food. But it wouldn't surprise me if the WTS contradict themselves on this point. (And of course, spotting blood is much easier than spotting if it's ever been strangled, or sacrificed to an idol!)
A better question would be is: Why did James throw this letter with its instructions back into Paul's face around 14 years later. Paul did not follow it and did not support keeping the Law or even some parts of it as contained in this letter. He was just glad that the discussion that took place then with Peter, John, James and himself was now over and wanted to make peace with them over the changes that Paul had just forced upon these Jews and such apostles in Jerusalem. Well what really happened we learn later is that Paul did not change their minds as he thought. Their capitulation applied only to Gentiles or so they thought when they ended the meeting abruptly with this letter. Paul was being deceived and this letter was part of the deception as he would find out when these same Jews nearly killed him over this same issue upon his return there. When he returned to Jerusalem they said to him: Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Imagine that! Prove to such Jews that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. But Paul did not keep the Law and taught against such practices. Now however they had the upper hand and would have killed him so he had to do something. They let Paul know that: 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. So their letter was not intended for Christian Jews like Paul or the Christian Jews in Jerusalem. Paul did what they wanted and this compromise nearly cost him his life anyway. All this was recorded to show us why Paul had so much trouble with Jews in all the territories he was responsible for and why instruction even if it seems to come from a qualified source such as James should not be taken as Gospel. James was not an apostle and was not qualified to make policy or establish doctrine for the faith. His later letter was an apology to the faith for what he had done and an appeal to Christian Jews that were still keeping the Law, informing them that it was not the way to salvation.10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. Finally, after so many years and perhaps not until after the book of Hebrews was written did James finally come around.
Joseph
I have done an long article on this at http://jwfacts.com/index_files/blooddoctrine.htm
There is nothing wrong with eating things strangled. In the Jewish Law things strangled could be sold to non Israelites.
At Acts 21:25 it recommended that ‘the believers from among the nations’ observe fours things from the Mosaic Law
““As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.””
This is not an exhaustive list of things to abstain from (murder being obvious omission) so why was this unusual list given. It was to prevent stumbling Jewish brothers. This was explained in the Watch Tower 1909 April 15 pp. 116-117 and is the common Christian understanding. The New Catholic Encyclopaedia states;
“These four prohibitions were imposed for the sake of charity and union. As they forbade practices which were held in special abhorrence by all the Jews, their observance was necessary to avoid shocking the Jewish brethren and to make free intercourse between the two classes of Christians possible….
With the disappearance of the Jewish-Christian community of Jerusalem at the time of the rebellion (A.D. 67-70), the question about circumcision and the observance of the Law ceased to be of any importance in the Church, and soon became a dead issue.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight as displayed at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm 17/09/2005)
How do both scholars and Russell reach this conclusion? Firstly, as the Mosaic Law had ceased to apply it does not make sense for Christians to be required to retain only this portion of it. Particularly is this so when considering that these four things are not the only Mosaic rules that a Christian must follow, nor are they the most important ones.
James explained why the four things mentioned at Acts 15:20 were specifically chosen in the very next verse.
Acts 15:19-21
” 1 Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath. ”
The words of Moses that were read in Synagogues every Sabbath is the passage from Lev 17:1 to 18:27. Leviticus 17 and 18 has the same four requirements, listed in the exact order as that given in Acts 15. These were the compulsory rules for both Israelites and foreigners living in ancient Israel. This is why these four items meant so much to the Judaizers. Hence the Apostles felt abstinence was necessary in order to prevent stumbling within the surrounding Jewish congregations.
Paul specifically states that there is nothing wrong with eating food sacrificed to idols. Paul explains that this prohibition was in order to not stumble others. This was an issue in congregations that were having trouble between Judaizers and Gentiles. The same principal can apply to blood.
1 Corinthians 8:4-13
“ Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world , and that there is no God but one… Nevertheless, there is not this knowledge in all persons; but some, being accustomed until now to the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God ; if we do not eat, we do not fall short, and, if we eat, we have no credit to ourselves. 9 But keep watching that this authority of YOURS does not somehow become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone should see you, the one having knowledge, reclining at a meal in an idol temple, will not the conscience of that one who is weak be built up to the point of eating foods offered to idols? 11 Really, by your knowledge, the man that is weak is being ruined, [your] brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 But when YOU people thus sin against YOUR brothers and wound their conscience that is weak, YOU are sinning against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat flesh at all, that I may not make my brother stumble. ”
1 Corinthians 10:25-33
“ Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating , making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it.” 27 If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. 28 But if anyone should say to YOU: “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person’s conscience? 30 If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks? 31 Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory. 32 Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, 33 even as I am pleasing all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they might get saved.”
Even though the decree at Acts 15 says to abstain from eating food sacrificed to idols Paul makes clear that there is nothing wrong with this practice. He said it was only wrong when it stumbled the brothers, in this case the Judaizers. Acts 15 included food sacrificed to idols, blood and animals strangled because they caused stumbling in the mixed congregations due to their being read “in the Synagogue on every Sabbath”, not because they are offensive to God. This became less of an issue after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and holds no relevance in our era.
Abstaining from blood is never mentioned in any other context in the New Testament. It is never discussed as a reason to shun a brother. Paul does not mention eating blood at 1 Corinthians 5 as a reason to ‘quit mixing’ with a brother, neither does John mention it. In Revelation 21:8 and 1 Corinthians 6 blood is not said to be a reason for not inheriting God’s Kingdom. If avoiding blood was a key requirement of God it would be mentioned alongside sins such as fornication, murder and idolatry that are repeatedly condemned in the New Testament.
