If eating unbled meat is taboo ...

by Frequent_Fader_Miles 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Frequent_Fader_Miles
    Frequent_Fader_Miles

    Then why is it okay to eat unbled fish?

    The dictionary categorizes "meat" as the "flesh of any animal, especially a mammal". Chicken and turkey are considered meats, though they aren't mammals. Pork is from a mammal (the pig), and is called "the other white meat". Since a fish is an animal, it would reason that fish fillets, fish fingers, canned tuna etc are all "animal flesh". I was made to understand that even some vegetarians consider fish to be meat.

    In JW wonderland, blood is considered so very sacred. Why doesn't the society urge J-dubs to stick to unbled fish as well?

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    Who knows why perhaps this applies only to warm blooded animals this law just meant that animals were definitely to be be dead before getting eaten. Fish die quickly when they come out of the water so they don't need to be bled.

  • Poztate
    Poztate
    In JW wonderland, blood is considered so very sacred. Why doesn't the society urge J-dubs to stick to unbled fish as well?

    It seems to me at one time there was an article about bleeding fish and how that was the correct thing to do.

    It would have been in the 70's that they had that viewpoint. It was about the same time as the article on pet foods came out and how important that you not feed "Fido" anything that might contain blood.

    My relatives to this day cut the throat of all fish they catch and it is not just to preserve freshness of the fish. I looked but can't find anything now.

  • purplesofa
    purplesofa

    Somethinkitiswrongtohuntandfish,whileothersseenowronginsuchpursuits.Somewhothinkhuntingpermissibledocontend,however,thatthegameshouldbethoroughlybledimmediatelyafteritisshottoavoidviolatingtheprohibitionofeatingblood.Thisbleedingisnotgenerallydone.WhatistheScripturalviewconcerningthesematters?—A.A.,UnitedStates.We must neither condemn what Jehovah approves nor approve what Jehovah condemns. The Bible speaks of "unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed." Some argue this applies only after the Noachian flood. But it was true in Eden, when "Jehovah God proceeded to make long garments of skin for Adam and for his wife and to clothe them." Also, long before the flood Abel was approved for offering an animal sacrifice, whereas disapproved Cain did not engage in killing animals for sacrifice but offered bloodless field products.—2 Pet. 2:12; Gen. 3:21; 4:3-5, NW.

    After the Flood man was permitted to kill animals for various reasons. The Mosaic law required the slaughter of different kinds for sacrifice, and animal skins or leather were properly used for not only garments but also such things as shoes, belts, containers, writing material and tabernacle parts and accessories. (Lev. 1:5, 10, 14; 13:59; Ezek. 16:10; Mark 6:9; 2 Ki. 1:8; Matt. 3:4; 9:17, NW; 2 Tim. 4:13; Ex. 26:14; Num. 4:6-14) If an animal killed a person it was to die: "In case an ox should gore a man or a woman and that one actually dies, the ox is to be stoned without fail." If animals were destructive of man’s property or crops they could be caught and destroyed: "Catch for us the foxes, the little foxes, that are despoiling the vineyards, since our vineyards are in bloom."—Ex. 21:28, NW; Cant. 2:15, AT.

    Animals may also be used for food, with the exception of the blood: "Every creeping animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat." During the wilderness sojourn Israelites wanting to eat animals suitable for sacrifice had to slay them at the tabernacle so the priest could sprinkle the blood upon Jehovah’s altar. When they had settled in the Promised Land and it would have been too great a hardship to bring animals suitable for sacrifice to the temple at Jerusalem, they could slaughter the animals at home and pour the blood out on the ground and cover it with dust. This was the same way the blood of wild game, such as the gazelle and the stag, was to be disposed of. (Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 17:3-6; Deut. 12:15, 16, 20-24, NW) Hunting for food was permitted, but the hunter was warned to bleed his game: "As for any man of the sons of Israel or some temporary resident who is residing for a while in your midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.’"—Lev. 17:13, 14, NW.

    If the hunter failed to bleed his game properly he was put to death, or "cut off." To eat unbled game not only was prohibited to Israelites under the Law, but also is forbidden for Christians: "Keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things killed without draining their blood and from fornication." (Acts 15:29; 21:25, NW) Immediately following the instruction to hunters to bleed their game and that to eat blood will mean their death, we read: "As for any soul that eats a dead body or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or a temporary resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening. Then he must be clean. But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, then he must answer for his iniquity." (Lev. 17:15, 16, NW) A body that dies of itself or of wounds inflicted by another animal would not be properly drained of blood, and hence was not to be eaten. Penalty for deliberate violation of the commandment to eat no blood is death, but in the last-mentioned case guilt could be erased by a ceremony of purification, which indicates it was a case where the commandment was violated innocently, unknowingly, as might happen when someone purchased or bartered for meat, or when eating as a guest of someone else. Now, as in Israel’s day, one who violates the command concerning blood accidentally, without knowing it, not doing so deliberately, can gain forgiveness by repentance and avoiding a recurrence of the trespass.

    Basing our position on the Bible, we shall have a balanced view, neither fanatically opposing all killing of animals, nor wantonly hunting them for sport. Jesus ate meat, both fish and lamb. He directed a successful fishing operation using a net, and also instructed that a fish be caught with a hook. (Luke 24:42, 43; Ex. 12:3, 8; Matt. 26:17-21; Luke 5:4-6; Matt. 17:27) Apparently fish required no special attention in bleeding, since there is no instruction concerning them; but the requirements relative to game birds and animals are specific and must be followed by theocratic hunters seeking to vary their meat diet with some wild game. Bullet wounds of today, like arrow wounds or fang-and-claw wounds from beasts of prey during the time of application of the Mosaic law, seldom effect adequate drainage of blood. Hence the hunter must make it complete by using his knife, whether it spoils a trophy or not.

    • Some think it is wrong to hunt and fish, while others see no wrong in such pursuits. Some who think hunting permissible do contend, however, that the game should be thoroughly bled immediately after it is shot to avoid violating the prohibition of eating blood. This bleeding is not generally done. What is the Scriptural view concerning these matters?—A. A., United States.We must neither condemn what Jehovah approves nor approve what Jehovah condemns. The Bible speaks of "unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed." Some argue this applies only after the Noachian flood. But it was true in Eden, when "Jehovah God proceeded to make long garments of skin for Adam and for his wife and to clothe them." Also, long before the flood Abel was approved for offering an animal sacrifice, whereas disapproved Cain did not engage in killing animals for sacrifice but offered bloodless field products.—2 Pet. 2:12; Gen. 3:21; 4:3-5, NW.

    After the Flood man was permitted to kill animals for various reasons. The Mosaic law required the slaughter of different kinds for sacrifice, and animal skins or leather were properly used for not only garments but also such things as shoes, belts, containers, writing material and tabernacle parts and accessories. (Lev. 1:5, 10, 14; 13:59; Ezek. 16:10; Mark 6:9; 2 Ki. 1:8; Matt. 3:4; 9:17, NW; 2 Tim. 4:13; Ex. 26:14; Num. 4:6-14) If an animal killed a person it was to die: "In case an ox should gore a man or a woman and that one actually dies, the ox is to be stoned without fail." If animals were destructive of man’s property or crops they could be caught and destroyed: "Catch for us the foxes, the little foxes, that are despoiling the vineyards, since our vineyards are in bloom."—Ex. 21:28, NW; Cant. 2:15, AT.

    Animals may also be used for food, with the exception of the blood: "Every creeping animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat." During the wilderness sojourn Israelites wanting to eat animals suitable for sacrifice had to slay them at the tabernacle so the priest could sprinkle the blood upon Jehovah’s altar. When they had settled in the Promised Land and it would have been too great a hardship to bring animals suitable for sacrifice to the temple at Jerusalem, they could slaughter the animals at home and pour the blood out on the ground and cover it with dust. This was the same way the blood of wild game, such as the gazelle and the stag, was to be disposed of. (Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 17:3-6; Deut. 12:15, 16, 20-24, NW) Hunting for food was permitted, but the hunter was warned to bleed his game: "As for any man of the sons of Israel or some temporary resident who is residing for a while in your midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.’"—Lev. 17:13, 14, NW.

    If the hunter failed to bleed his game properly he was put to death, or "cut off." To eat unbled game not only was prohibited to Israelites under the Law, but also is forbidden for Christians: "Keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things killed without draining their blood and from fornication." (Acts 15:29; 21:25, NW) Immediately following the instruction to hunters to bleed their game and that to eat blood will mean their death, we read: "As for any soul that eats a dead body or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or a temporary resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening. Then he must be clean. But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, then he must answer for his iniquity." (Lev. 17:15, 16, NW) A body that dies of itself or of wounds inflicted by another animal would not be properly drained of blood, and hence was not to be eaten. Penalty for deliberate violation of the commandment to eat no blood is death, but in the last-mentioned case guilt could be erased by a ceremony of purification, which indicates it was a case where the commandment was violated innocently, unknowingly, as might happen when someone purchased or bartered for meat, or when eating as a guest of someone else. Now, as in Israel’s day, one who violates the command concerning blood accidentally, without knowing it, not doing so deliberately, can gain forgiveness by repentance and avoiding a recurrence of the trespass.

    Basing our position on the Bible, we shall have a balanced view, neither fanatically opposing all killing of animals, nor wantonly hunting them for sport. Jesus ate meat, both fish and lamb. He directed a successful fishing operation using a net, and also instructed that a fish be caught with a hook. (Luke 24:42, 43; Ex. 12:3, 8; Matt. 26:17-21; Luke 5:4-6; Matt. 17:27) Apparently fish required no special attention in bleeding, since there is no instruction concerning them; but the requirements relative to game birds and animals are specific and must be followed by theocratic hunters seeking to vary their meat diet with some wild game. Bullet wounds of today, like arrow wounds or fang-and-claw wounds from beasts of prey during the time of application of the Mosaic law, seldom effect adequate drainage of blood. Hence the hunter must make it complete by using his knife, whether it spoils a trophy or not.

    QuestionsfromReaders

    Mustfishbebledbeforetheyareeaten?—U.S.A.

    The Bible does not specifically mention the bleeding of fish. Only in the case of land animals or fowl do we read: "As for any man . . . who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust."—Lev. 17:13.

    Fish that were suitable for food according to the terms of the Mosaic law did not contain a quantity of blood sufficient to be poured out and covered with dust. Evidently for this reason the Law set forth no precise statement about bleeding fish.

    There being no Scriptural stipulation to squeeze or soak meat to remove blood, no one is under obligation to take extreme measures to extract blood from fish. Of course, the blood of every sort of creature represents its life and is therefore sacred. So, if, on cutting a fish open, a person sees an accumulation of blood, he should remove it.

  • Poztate
    Poztate

    Thanks Purplesofa for clarifying that for me.... I guess all my Jdub relatives are just a little fanatical about it.

  • Pahpa
    Pahpa

    There was the command to Noah and his sons that "meat with it's life blood" should not be eaten. (Gen. 9:4) There were definate restrictions in the Mosaic law about eating unbled meat. But the one instance mentioned in the Bible about Israelites eating unbled meat did not seem to bring severe measures upon them. (1 Samuel 14:31-35) Saul required that a proper bleeding take place with the remainder of the animals and an altar was erected to the Lord. No mention is made about other penalties or judgment.

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    Pahpa,

    Yes, such information regarding blood and its use was intended to emphasize the life that was contained within such blood. The scriptures were training us to grasp the importance of such life, the significant component contained within it but mostly overlooked by most readers. All of this was preparatory to our understanding the significance of the Ransom that would be revealed later. The life that existed within Adam and found in his bones and blood was real, highly valued by God that provided it, and redeemable as we have learned since. The rib of Adam could give life to another for such reasons. So this regard for blood is about the very life itself that also existed within the animals and is a major component of such blood. It is this life, propagate-able and real existing within Adam that will be redeemed along with the human beings that obtained such life from him. 1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Where we may fail to recognize life as the most significant component of our Being, God does not and values such life that came from Him.

    Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

    Ge 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

    Ge 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

    Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

    Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

    Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

    Joh 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

    Apart from this significant feature the eating of such blood was not the real issue and such restrictions on its use would in time be removed. James chose to keep it as a feature of the faith at least among Gentile believers to which he wrote. Paul placated James and the others in Jerusalem after embarrassing them and winning a big battle with James, Peter, and John over the Law so he did not choose to argue the matter further on some minor points. This was a significant error on Paul's part recorded in Acts 21 that nearly cost him his life when James and many such others present would challenge him on the matter in Jerusalem some 14 years later.

    Joseph

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit