“EdenOne”: “The case of Jonathan and his men is interesting because it demonstrated a gray area - just how much time should one wait after slaughtering an animal before one could assume it had bled enough to be considered kosher? Some, like Saul, thought not enough time had passed. Others had a more liberal approach, interpreting the Law in a way that letting some blood to be poured into the ground was enough to respect the spirit of the Law. Eventually this interpretation prevailed, and Jonathan and his men not only weren't executed, no mention is made that they became "unclean".”
That brings up quite an interesting point: Just how much blood needed to be poured out, and just how soon after slaughtering did it have to be poured out? Here’s a little analogy: Some years ago I observed an old brother supposedly of the anointed remnant (since deceased) partaking of the emblems at the Memorial. I clearly remember him partaking of the wine, as he was standing on the platform at the time, as I think he was asked to give the prayer over that particular part of the observance. Anyway, the point is that, like all the other anointed partakers, he just took a good sip or two, and that was sufficiently enough to accomplish the act of publicly taking that emblem. Now, he didn’t compulsively suck every last little drop from the glass and then drink another glass or two (he wasn’t Franklin Rutherford!), and he didn’t have to, as just a sip or two was sufficient – that is, sufficient to “respect the spirit of” the act being performed.
Now, how does this relate to the necessary requirements under the ancient Mosaic Law regarding the sanctity of blood? Simple. In pouring out just a little token amount of blood – at least when that option would have been available as with an animal having been freshly slaughtered and able to have been bled before the heart stopped pumping and the blood started to coagulate – and, similarly, in the case of an anointed taking just a sip of the Memorial wine, in both those examples, what would be required as a “sufficient” requirement to effect observing and respecting “the spirit of,” or the “essence” of, the law or principle of the occasions would be a simple token gesture.
It just makes reasonable sense – not every little drop nor absolutely immediately would be required, but, simply, just to pour out whatever small quantity of blood that would be considered a token gesture of respect for “the spirit of the Law,” at least in the case of an animal killed recently enough to be physically able to be bled at the time. After all, you would think that a supposedly all-wise God would show some level of reasonableness – in line with the essence of Philippians 4:5, which admonishes: “Let your reasonableness become known to all men.”
