From Noah to Jerusalem: What is: Abstain from Blood?

by Terry 27 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  King Solomon

  4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

  You'd think YHWH would be able to speak in a coherent manner, i.e. using words that didn't require parsing to comprehend.... Verse 4 is straight-ahead, but things get confusing in verse 5:

  And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting.

  This seems to imply that Noah's (man's) blood, if spilled, will require some ACCOUNTING, i.e. a justification or explanation as to WHY it was spilled. Does 'for your lifeblood' refer to an act leading to death, or is it simply referring to loss of blood?

  If not leading to death, surely such demanded justification would include donating blood to save another life (as Jews interpret the scripture)?

  I will demand an accounting from every animal.

  "From" or "For"?

  If "from", then is God saying that an animal that kills another animal must have a justifiable reason? Or an animal that kills a human must have a good reason? Certainly that seems outrageous (unless survival is an acceptable reason). The latter is supported by Levitical laws (the bull that kills a human is to be put to death, and possibly even the owner, under certain circumstances).

  And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

  Again, this is slightly different, in that it specifies a loss of life, not just bloodshed (which includes injury, as well as death).

  This is where researching the original Hebrew words used is critical....

  BTW, the next verse (Gen 9:6) is significant, as it's the one where God grants man His Divine Authority to implement a judicial system, for the first time in the Bible.
• 

  Bobcat

  That "abstain from....blood' meant "thou shalt not kill" is imaginable at Acts15 and has been proposed before but I doubt it.

  Terry, I was thinking along the same lines as you. My reasoning was in part because it would coincide better with the covenant made with Noah in Genesis chapter 9. But, IMO, it would also better fit the immediate and larger context of Acts.

  My reasoning is as follows:

  (1) In the book of Acts, every mention of "blood," besides in regard to this directive, has reference to blood guilt or in some way connected to the shedding of blood, not the eating/consuming of it.

  These are the occurrances of "blood" in Acts: 1:19; 2:19; 2:20; 5:28;15:20, 29; 18:6; 20:26, 28; 21:25; 22:20

  They break down to:

  15:20, 29; 21:25 - The letter/directive from Jerusalem

  1:19 - Judas' field of blood (from Judas' bloody death)

  2:19, 20 - figurative, but drawing on the color of blood

  5:28; 18:6; 20:26; - blood guilt

  20:28 - Jesus' shed blood, thus related to murder

  22:20 - Stephan's shed blood, thus related to murder

  (2) In the directive itself (in Acts 15), it mentions "abstain from ... things strangled," which is an obvious reference to eating/consuming blood. If "abstain ... from blood" also refers to consuming, then, you have an overlap of commands. This, to me, doesn't make sense given the fact that the writers were trying to minimize the number of stipulations for Gentiles. If "from blood" meant consumption, then, "from things strangled" would become an unnecessary repitition. (or visa versa)

  It would be good to keep in mind that the letter as reported in Acts may very well be just a brief synopsis of a more detailed actual letter. This might account for the missing verbs in "abstain from ... [stuff]".

  Also, the command, as reported by the writer of Acts, was "abstain from ... carefully keep yourselves from ... " Gentile converts would already be aware of the need to "keep themselves from" immorality, idolatry, murder and so forth. These were basic teachings of Christianity. The purpose of the letter was more likely to make the Gentiles aware of areas that they would consider "grey areas", but were outright forbidden for Jews. One example that comes to mind in regard to murder would be the treatment of slaves. The Jewish Law had a comparatively humane way of treating slaves, whereas Roman laws were comparatively brutal. A gentile growing up under Roman law might not be as sensitive towards slaves as his Jewish counterpart. Same way for immorality. For a Jew, everything outside of marriage was immoral. But gentile might see a more blurred picture of what was classified as immoral. (1 Cor 5:1 is a good example of this difference in viewpoint.)

  Take Care
• 

  glenster

  Gen.9 doesn't define blood as "murder" but "life." Distinguishing shedding
  blood in murder from eating blood, esp. in a list of foods in a culture with a
  food ban for eating blood, would be clarified by the Gen.9 phrasing (“Whoever
  sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed," also Acts 22:20) but it
  wasn't used in Acts 15.

  The more common interpretation doesn't create a repetition of "blood" and
  "things strangled" so a need to avoid it by interpreting "blood" as meaning
  "murder." By the more common interpretation:

  abstain from

  blood--eating meat not koshered and blood per se

  things offered to idols--meat from idol temples which was probably not
  koshered but off limits to Jewish law followers regardless because it was from
  unclean Gentiles

  things strangled--typically given as a referance lost to time, a common guess
  being meat taken from a since-forgotten ritual of the time and place. (It possi-
  bly had to do with the belief in attributes of an animal being transferred to
  the human who kills it, possibly something else, also meat not koshered, and
  probably not a Jewish as likely as a Gentile activity, but who knows? It was
  something offensive to Jewish law.)

  fornication--notably idol temple prostitution, commonly accepted in Gentile
  culture and rejected by Jewish law

  Roman slavery was different from Jewish law slavery in various ways:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome#Treatment
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery#Treatment_of_slaves
• 

  cofty

  Blood represented a life that had been taken. By pouring out the blood it symbolically returned the life to god.

  For this reason a Jew could eat an unbled animal found "already dead" with impunity. A priest who must remain clean did not enjoy this provision.

  By offering blood on the altar, the life of the sacrificed animal substituted for the life of the pennitent sinner.

  Acts 15 is simply a restatement of the 3 elements of the Law that must be kept by an "alien resident" - fornication, idolatry and blood.

  By keeping these things Jewish and Gentile christians could enjoy fellowship.

  more here...
• 

  mP

  glenster:

  Roman slavery was different from Jewish law slavery in various ways:

  mp -> glenster:

  The wiki paragraph is very carefully worded and skillfully omits many of the evils of Jewish slavery. They forget to mention that an owner could beat his slave and was only punished if they died within 48 hours. Another cruel aspect is that women slaves could be raped. Lets not forget there are many examples of this where the owner has his way with the slave and she is never presented as having any will, eg Abraham and Hagar.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_mitzvot

  Canaanite slaves must work forever unless injured in one of their limbs — Lev. 25:46

  I could list many more, but dont blieve that the Jews in the past were somehow charitable and the Romans evil. Both were equally cruel, none was better than the other.
• 

  glenster

  cofty--blood represented life. Shedding it from an animal took the life,
  which the follower offered back to God as a ritual way to honor God as the ulti-
  mate life giver and taker.

  But Dt.14:21 tells followers to not eat animals found dead--they were to give
  them to foreigners for foreigners to use them as food, which all the more set
  off the followers as holy (so foreigners weren't under a Noachine literal blood
  rule) (passage at the next link):
  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+14&version=NIV

  "Acts 15 is simply a restatement of the 3 elements of the Law that must be
  kept by an 'alien resident' - fornication, idolatry and blood. By keeping these
  things Jewish and Gentile christians could enjoy fellowship.

  Proselytes had a lot more than three rules (article at the next link):
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselyte#Two_kinds_of_proselyte_in_Judaism

  
  "Idolatry," worship of whatever other than God, could be done without food and
  isn't one of the rules. It wouldn't be discouraged due to proximity to Jewish
  law followers but generally.

  "Things offered to idols" included the common meats of Corinth. It doesn't
  ban them generally since Christians like Paul could eat them apart from idolatry
  and without being idolatrous. But since those meats were from animals
  slaughtered by Gentiles and made the partaker unclean to Jews, the abstinence
  was for socialization with Jewish law followers. (Also see Paul's other writ-
  ings about food, etc.)

  mP--I don't think the rule on "blood" was a reference to killing. Rules about
  treatment of slaves would have been made more clear than by just using the word
  "blood" (another reason being that, again, it would be likely to be thought of
  as a reference to koshering in Jewish culture).
• 

  mP

  glenster - mP--I don't think the rule on "blood" was a reference to killing. Rules about

  treatment of slaves would have been made more clear than by just using the word
  "blood" (another reason being that, again, it would be likely to be thought of
  as a reference to koshering in Jewish culture).

  mP -> glenster

  Im sure if this intentional, but you seem to be implying that the Jewish religion of today with its customs is in anyway similar to the old religion in the Bible. The OT and particularly its laws while having some elementary similarities would be very much different and incompatible with the religion of today. I just wanted to point out and help avoid such assumptions or statements.
• 

  mP

  mP ->

  Where does the BIble list only 7 laws of Noah?

  Terry -> MP

  Like most of the content of scripture the Documentary Hypothesis best explains the process of later writers superimposing over history.

  The Noahide Laws were for resident aliens. The Pharisees were traditionally seeking converts wherever they could find them. Whom they brought in to the fold were dealt with legalistically.

  I deal with this matter skeptically, historically and realistically by raising the above question.

  mP -> terry

  I am aware but thanks for reiterating for others, however as i previously said where does it actually back this definition ? I cant recall but this just sounds like more modern xian made up stuff rather than having some solid basis on the Bible.
• 

  mP

  Glenster

  "Idolatry," worship of whatever other than God, could be done without food and
  isn't one of the rules. It wouldn't be discouraged due to proximity to Jewish
  law followers but generally.

  mp -> glenster

  Before i argue, i will make the statement that this "law" is based on the ten commandments.

  Interestingly supposedly this text originates from the Moses character, who also creates a copper snake who was worshipped as Nehusitan for hundreds of years until Josiah destroyed it. Why this "idol" which was in the temple remained there for 500+ years and was never a target of complaint by other prophets remains unsolved. I think your painting and assuming that your understanding and definition of these terms is exactly what the ancients understood.

  The wiki article has a few intersting q.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_make_for_yourself_an_idol

  This very much reminds me of a conversation i had with a JW where i asked why God allowed slavery. He honestly believed that the slavery discussed was equivalent to our modern jobs. HOwever i then showed some of the more disturbing scriptures like the master being able to beat the slave nearly to death and somehow he still told me that was a better system than what we have today. Amazingly sad.

  Your definotions are the same, you try and play word games to make the Bible more admirable or moral for convenience.
• 

  Terry

  Where does the BIble list only 7 laws of Noah?

  From the Jewish Encyclopeida (online):

  LAWS, NOACHIAN:

  Table of Contents

  • The Seven Laws.
  • Laws Before Sinai.
  • Procedure.
  • Special Exceptions.

  The Seven Laws.

  Laws which were supposed by the Rabbis to have been binding upon mankind at large even before the revelation at Sinai, and which are still binding upon non-Jews. The term Noachian indicates the universality of these ordinances, since the whole human race was supposed to be descended from the three sons of Noah, who alone survived the Flood. Although only those laws which are found in the earlier chapters of the Pentateuch, before the record of the revelation at Sinai, should, it would seem, be binding upon all mankind, yet the Rabbis discarded some and, by hermeneutic rules or in accordance with some tradition (see Judah ha-Levi, "Cuzari," iii. 73), introduced others which are not found there. Basing their views on the passage in Gen. ii. 16, they declared that the following six commandments were enjoined upon Adam: (1) not to worship idols; (2) not to blaspheme the name of God; (3) to establish courts of justice; (4) not to kill; (5) not to commit adultery; and (6) not to rob (Gen. R. xvi. 9, xxiv. 5; Cant. R. i. 16; comp. Seder 'Olam Rabbah, ed. Ratner, ch. v. and notes, Wilna, 1897; Maimonides, "Yad," Melakim, ix. 1). A seventh commandment was added after the Flood—not to eat flesh that had been cut from a living animal (Gen. ix. 4). Thus,the Talmud frequently speaks of "the seven laws of the sons of Noah," which were regarded as obligatory upon all mankind, in contradistinction to those that were binding upon Israelites only (Tosef., 'Ab. Zarah, ix. 4; Sanh. 56a et seq.).

  While many additions were made to these laws by some of the tannaim—e.g., the prohibitions against eating the blood of a living animal, against the emasculation of animals, against sorcery, against pairing animals of different species, and against grafting trees of different kinds (ib. 56b)—so that in one place thirty Noachian laws are mentioned (?ul. 92a; comp. Yer. 'Ab. Zarah ii. 1), the prevalent opinion in the Talmud is that there are only seven laws which are binding upon all mankind. In another baraita (Tanna debe Menasseh) the seven Noachian prohibitions are enumerated as applying to the following: (1) idolatry, (2) adultery, (3) murder, (4) robbery, (5) eating of a limb cut from a living animal, (6) the emasculation of animals, (7) the pairing of animals of different species (Sanh. 56b)