Blood and Acts question

by Wicaugen 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Wicaugen

  Okay, so, I dunno if this has been brought up before, it probably has, but I have an in depth question.

  Acts 15:20-21 - but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For from anchient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.

  Okay. Here's my question. Paul told us we are no longer under the law (Gal. 3:23-25). This law is, of course, Moses' Torah, or however you like to refer to it, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deutoronomy. Unless I'm mistaken, outside of Acts, these are the books we find references to abstaining from blood. In Matthew 15, specifically Matthew 15:19-20, Jesus is talking to the apostles about a man's eating without washing his hands, and claims this is not unclean.

  Matthew 15:19-20 - For example, out of the heart come wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, fornications, thieveries, false testimonies, blasphemies.

  These are the things Jesus says cause a man to be unclean. It is in reference to things that go into the stomach rather than out of the stomach, and, as Jesus basically puts it, the things which come OUT of a man is what makes a man unclean. Now, why was eating blood banned? Well, according to Genesis, it is because God will 'ask for it back' (Gen. 9:5-7). Now, unless there is more scriptures which explain a different reason, it sounds to me like the sacrifices of animals which were required of the Jews before Jesus. Now, look back at Acts. It seems like a reference to the old law which says we can't eat blood, but I see something else.

  Acts 15:20 - For from anchient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.

  What does this mean? This seems to me like the REASON we should abstain from certain things. Because of Moses being preached for years. Now other scriptures COLLABORATE the idea that fornication and that such are, indeed, things that defile a man. On the other hand, no other scripture in the New Testament supports the idea of not eating blood. And the LAW, which we are no longer under, is the only other evidence that we are not to eat blood. FURTHERMORE, Jesus said it is NOT what ENTERS a man which DEFILES him. It is what comes out of him.

  So, my question, is, what did the letter mean when it said abstain from blood, in relation to other scriptures?
• 

  civicsi00

  It meant to abstain, as in abstain from eating blood. Back then, the Gentiles were becoming Christians and they were eating food that contained blood, and this was offensive to the Christian Jews. So that's why they decreed that the Gentile Christians should abstain from eating blood, so they wouldn't offend the Jewish Christians. It was all for keeping the peace, that's it.
• 

  Athanasius

  From what I have read in a number of Bible commentaries, including the Anchor Bible, the dietary restrictions listed in Acts 15:20 has to do with table fellowship among Jewish and Gentile Christians. Gentile Christians, while being free of Old Testament dietary laws, were to abstain from certain dietary practices for the sake of the Jewish Christians.

  The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 9, page 448 says: "These prohibitions have often been viewed as a compromise between two warring parties, which nullified the effect of James's earlier words and made the decision of the Jerusalem Council unacceptable to Paul. But in reality they should be viewed not as dealing with the principial issue of the council but as meeting certain practical concerns; not as being primarily theological but more sociological in nature; not as divine ordinances for acceptance before God but as concessions to the scruples of others for the sake of harmony within the church and the continuance of the Jewish Christian mission."

  The Watchtower as usual takes Acts 15:20 out of context.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  It was basically to keep the peace between the Gentile and Jewish Christians. The Jewish Christians would get scandalized by Gentile dietary habits because they had been raised in the Law of Moses that prohibited it, it was deeply ingrained in them, and it was causing serious problems in the churches because they would often share a table and eat together. It was better to keep the peace between the different ethnicities, and the Jews had come first through Abraham, their nation was the instrument through which God would bless all the nations through the Messiah. Jesus had come from among them, so it was appropriate that the younger Gentile brother, just grafted in, should cede to the older Jewish one for a time rather than be too proud. The Church was young and in transition. It was a provisional and temporary judgement, not an absolute moral one. Do some research, the other posters on this thread here are correct, the JW interpretation of the text is almost completely unique.

  BTS
• 

  wobble

  Thanks BTS and the other posters, I think you have put the scripture in perspective.

  Personally I would never choose to eat blood,blood sausage,or Black Pudding ,as it is known in the U.K, or a similar product, but I am not nit-picking about it, as Dubs are.

  I think the original principle was,as you had taken a life by killing the animal,you bled it onto the ground in recognition of Life being from God.

  So for those wanting to not offend god today, it doesn't really arise as a problem, and certainly that scripture has no bearing on transfusion of blood to SAVE life.

  Love

  Wobble
• 

  Chalam

  So, my question, is, what did the letter mean when it said abstain from blood, in relation to other scriptures?

  This question came up in another thread. I asked it myself not so long ago.

  There are other issues which are of similar worth, but not so weighty in relation to JWs. People are dying from the WT doctrine with regard to the "no blood" issue.

  So what is the answer? We are not under the law but under the Grace of Christ and freed from the law.

  Galatians 3 Galatians 4 Ephesians 2 Hebrews 10

  All the best,

  Stephen
• 

  Narkissos

  The narrative in Acts seems to offer a distorted picture of a limited, local early Christian tradition as a universal decree applying to all Gentile Christians; there are a number of seams which point to a rather artificial construction: the meeting in Jerusalem is explained in two different ways (v. 1-2; 5-7); it is partly depicted as a "leader council" (v. 6) and as a plenary church assembly (v. 12,22); in v. 22f Paul is supposed to convey the message but in 21:25 James tells him about it as if he had never heard of it; Peter exited from the narrative in chapter 12 but suddenly reappears in chapter 15, without any explanation, never to be mentioned again. The "decree" is addressed to Christians in Cilicia and Syria (15:23) but there is no mention of Paul referring to it there except in the Western text of v. 41; otoh he is supposed to have shared it in Lycaonia (16:4)...

  In Paul's epistles there is no hint of the "decree," actually Paul takes a rather different stance about the issue of "idol food" in 1 Corinthians 8; 10 (cf. Romans 14): he doesn't refer to the decree but doesn't argue against it either. Now in Revelation (which clearly implies a local context in Asia Minor) the same issue is dealt with in a completely different way: "idol food" is an absolute prohibition -- not motivated by "conscience" as in Paul or Jewish/Gentile relationship as in Acts -- and it is connected again with porneia (2:14,20), while the negative symbolism of (especially eating/drinking) blood plays an important part in the book (8:7ff; 11:6; 14:20; 16:3-6; 17:6; 18:24).
• 

  JosephMalik

  So, my question, is, what did the letter mean when it said abstain from blood, in relation to other scriptures?

  Wicaugen,

  What the letter actually meant was that Gentiles were to keep some of the Law including the blood prohibition while Jewish believers were to keep all of it. How do we know? Because the Apostle Paul was informed that this was its purpose when he returned to Jerusalem to meet James some 14 years later.

  Acts 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 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. 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.

  Now Paul did not take it that way when the letter was issued during the original meeting that prompted its release? No he simply saw it as a capitulation on their part namely Peter, James and John that applied to Jews as well as Gentiles as Galatians chapter 2 showed where he reviewed what took place. James however fooled Paul and stopped the discussion before his views were clarified at the time. So James, the apostles and Jewish disciples in Jerusalem and elsewhere continued to keep the Law and circumcision. Paul did not teach such things nor did he walkest orderly and keepest the law and now he was in a fight for his life with thousands of believers against him. What to do? How can he now reach them? Was this a mistake on Paul’s part? Like trying to stay in the Watchtower to help them from the inside? Seems like a good idea but it is not good practice and dangerous since it compromises the faith. We can take it that way since Luke (Paul’s friend) recorded such errors in judgment made by Apostles or other men in the faith in Acts. And Paul’s decision to try and reason with them this way nearly cost him his life. By WT standards the Jerusalem congregation was apostate and needed Paul,s counsel and finally the book of Hebrews to correct this problem.

  Joseph
• 

  JosephMalik

  My response here resulted in the following e-mail question and it may also be of interest here:

  Hope things are well with you. Question on the verses used by the WT to support their blood ban (which I know is bogus). They claim that since fornication ismentionedhere they are all totally and forever binding. What is the meaning here? Obviously fornication is not ok if it does not stumble others.

  My response to this e-mail:

  Makes no difference that fornication was mentioned. The real reason for the letter is what mattered and that included parts of the Law for Gentiles. Good parts and bad parts mixed together do not make a doctrine or rule. Acts 21 gave the real reason for it, not the deceptive one James offered at its inception (Acts 15, Gal 2). Remember what James said at the time and Paul's view of it: Ac 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. 2Co 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. None of it was valid as rules or doctrine and Paul did not teach from it like But James did. James, the apostles and the disciples in Jerusalem were wrong and their letter was not binding upon anyone in the faith. As it turned out it was largely the reason why faithful believers still kept the Law and nearly had Paul killed since they put his life in jeopardy. It took Paul many years to finally resolve this issue and you should know from his letters that he did this with other doctrines as well in the congregations he formed.

  Joseph
• 

  glenster

  What I have on that is on pp.12-42 at the next link:

  http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id26.html