|
|
||
|
|
|||
One of the most interesting, and therefore inevitably
controversial, passages in the New Testament is found in the record of the
Council at Jerusalem. The question before
the Body of Christ at that time was, “What shall we do about the Gentiles?”
In
great numbers, the Greeks and Romans were joining the faith of Yahshua, and the
apostles were quite sensitive to the culture from which they were coming. Indeed, some of the wording of the Gospels
and Epistles reflects an emphasis in reaching out to the new converts, and
potential converts, with terminology and concepts with which they were already
familiar (e.g., logos in John 1:1 and the reference to Tartarus
in the Greek of 2Peter 2:4). The idea
behind this is expressed in Yahweh’s Word, “Be thou for the people to God-ward,
that thou mayest bring the causes unto Elohim,” (Exodus 18:19) and this should
certainly always be our goal.
When it
came to the principles that were important for understanding the Covenant
between Yahweh and His people, however, there could be no
misunderstandings. James writes, “Pure
religion and undefiled before Elohim and the Father is this: to visit the
fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from
the world.” (James 1:27)
All
claims of culture aside, if a practice reflected the mannerisms of this world
in opposition to the practices of one seeking Heaven, it was to be
avoided. If a practice signified
allegiance to another deity, at least in the minds of onlookers, this would
weaken the impact of the Gospel message, thus Paul says in discussing matters
of food offered to idols, “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast,
and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question
for conscience sake. But if any man say
unto you, ‘This is offered in sacrifice unto idols,’ eat not for his sake that
shewed it, and for conscience sake, for the earth is Yahweh’s, and the fullness
thereof. Conscience, I say, not
thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s
conscience?” (1Corinthians 10:27-29)
To
answer Cain’s question, (Genesis 4:9) Yes… we are our brother’s keepers, and
the apostles were well aware of the need to balance the opinions of their
zealous Hebrew brethren, (Acts 20:21-25) with what was reasonable to demand of
spiritual newborns. (Acts 15:19)
It is
with this picture in mind that we should approach the incident recorded in Acts
15, and in fact the passage cited above from Acts 20 gives a second witness to
the matter being discussed.
After settling the primary matter being brought by those commonly referred to as “Judaizers,” and deciding that circumcision was not a prerequisite for entering into the New Covenant, we read these additional words from James: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God; but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” (Acts 15:19-21)
There
were some things that were not necessary for new converts to perform, such as
Circumcision. There were some things
that were not necessary for them to know immediately, such as those things that
could be learned in the synagogues on Sabbaths before their own churches were
well established. And then, there were
some things that were vital for their understanding immediately, and these
included abstaining from idolatry, avoiding fornication, and certain dietary
requirements including avoiding the ingestion of blood.
Now, in
modern Christianity, there are many who believe that the Almighty is not
interested in our diets. They have no
problem with saying that a Christian should have no God but the Creator, and of
course they will teach that fornication is a sin. Yet rarely is the issue of “blood” raised, because it is
undeniably a “holdover” from the “bad old days” when the Almighty kept
interfering in the private lives of His people. Though few will use words like this outwardly, it is implicit in
the way some Christians treat the Old Testament Scriptures that they are relieved
Yahweh cares a little less about our daily practices, as long as we have faith.
This is
the result of a misunderstanding of the word “faith.” Faith, as used in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Epistles,
implies far more than a nebulous concept of thinking the right way. Faith is a state of mind that, if it is
genuine, will invariably lead to the right actions. As James, who gave the above instructions about blood, says, “Yea,
a man may say, ‘Thou hast faith, and I have works.’ Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my
faith by my works.” (James 2:18) It is
true that we are justified by faith only, but justification is only the first
step in the walk of the Christian life; thereafter there must be
sanctification, a walk of increasing holiness, and the signposts on this road
are acts of faith, that we may “shew” what we truly believe.
That
having been said, modern groups of professed believers will treat the
statements about blood in Acts 15 and 20 in one of three ways:
a)
They will ignore them,
b)
They will take them to
extremes,
c)
They will seek to find the
principle behind them and apply them in a balanced way to their lives.
This
paper is designed to reveal the principles behind this “holdover” from the
older Books, and thereby show why the judgment of the Jerusalem Council cannot
be reasonably ignored. We will then
examine how some individuals and groups have taken the matter too far, and
where in the Bible such practices are repudiated. Finally, we will look at the ways in which both the letter and
spirit of this instruction are meant to bless our lives with health, spiritual
growth, and a deeper knowledge of the Almighty to whom all our worship is due.
(Revelation 14:7)
Are we
safe in ignoring anything that appears in the Scriptures? The Messiah declares that the writings of
the prophets testify of Him, (John 5:39) and the Christian believes that it is
knowledge of the Savior and the Father who sent Him that provides eternal life.
(John 17:3) At the same time, we must
be careful that we derive the right meaning from what is written. As Peter says of some of the writings of
Paul, there “are some things hard to be understood, which they that are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their
own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)
There
are two points to be made there. First,
Peter is not limiting this idea merely to Paul’s writings, for he says “as they
do also the other Scriptures.” Secondly,
this does not provide an excuse to skip over any verse or passage because it
seems difficult. Many is the soul who
says, “Peter says some things are hard to understand, so if it isn’t readily
obvious, maybe we should just leave it alone.”
This is neither what Peter intended nor said. He did not say, “Some passages are difficult, therefore we should
focus on other things.” He said, “They
are difficult, therefore the unlearned and unstable will twist them
around [Greek: strebloo] to their own disaster.”
If
someone uses Peter’s wording above to ignore something in the Bible, they
reveal themselves as either unlearned or unstable – and what Bible teacher
would like to admit to this?
We must
seek to understand why James would decide that abstaining from blood-containing
meat was an important matter for even the Gentiles to understand, and quickly
upon their association with the Body of Christ.
James’
decision on this matter came from specific places in the Bible and, since he
was essentially quoting from the Old Testament, it may be beneficial to see the
precise statutes pertaining to blood as they appear therein. Some of the
relevant passages are these:
“And
Elohim blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, ‘Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth. […]
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green
herb have I given you all things. But
flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”
(Genesis 9:1-4) Even in this first and
most sparse instruction regarding the permission for humans to use animals as
food, the prohibition on blood is explicitly stated.
“It
shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your
dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.” (Leviticus 3:17) “Moreover ye
shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your
dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that
soul shall be cut off from his people.” (Leviticus 7:26, 27)
In
chapter 17 we are given a practical reason why: “And whatsoever man there be of
the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth
any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth
blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to
you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood
that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, ‘No soul of you shall eat
blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And
whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that
sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be
eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.’ For
it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof, therefore
I said unto the children of Israel, ‘Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of
flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it
shall be cut off.’” (Leviticus 17:10-14)
There
are a great number of verses that speak about the prohibition on using blood
for food, and these first few are a fairly representative set. It should be noted, and this is important to
our discussion, that the primary reason given for the avoidance of blood is a
ceremonial one. That is to say, the
spiritual meaning is that which Yahweh specifically advanced for the
instruction of His people. The blood represents the life, which, from a
Christian perspective, is antitypical of the blood shed for us by Yahshua on
the cross. (Hebrews 9:12, Revelation 1:5)
This is
not to say that the ceremonial/symbolic reason is the only one. There are two other secondary reasons that
may be implied with convincing certainty.
The
second reason is that Yahweh sought to put a distinction between the sacrifices
of His people, and the sacrifices of the heathen nations around them. The Israelites had a hard enough time
avoiding the worship of foreign gods as it was, and if their religious rituals
appeared to coincide with the pagans’ in any meaningful way, this would only
make less of a gap between the holy and the unholy.
We find
the following example of heathen worship in the Bible:
“And
[the priests of Ba’al] took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed
it, and called on the name of Ba’al from morning even until noon, saying, ‘O Ba’al,
hear us.’ But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon
the altar which was made. And it came
to pass at noon that Elijah mocked them, and said, ‘Cry aloud: for he is a god.
Either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure
he sleepeth, and must be awaked.’ And
they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and
lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.” (1Kings 18:26-28)
It was “their
manner” to seek to appease Ba’al with an offering of blood. The difference, however, was that the pagan
deities needed to be fed (c.f. the story of Daniel’s confrontation with
Bel in the apocryphal book “Bel and The Dragon”), and this was not a
foreshadowing of Ba’al’s sacrificing himself for the good of his people. Furthermore, Yahweh required no human blood,
but the blood of animals sacrificed on behalf of humans as a precursor to His
own Son; and the blood of these sacrifices was to be reverently poured out near
His altar. (Exodus 29:12)
We read
with horror that king Solomon, during his years of apostasy, built temples to
Chemosh, the demon of the Moabites, and to Molech, the dark prince of
Ammon. We know much about the manner of
worship involved with the latter of these deities in particular: “Both
classical and patristic writers testify to a cult of child sacrifice,
particularly in times of military emergency, in Phonecia and at Carthage […]
the preliminary analysis of remains found at Carthage suggests that child
sacrifice increased in frequency (relative to animal substitution), at least
through the 4th-3rd centuries BCE.” [Dictionary of
Deities and Demons in The Bible, van der Toorn, Becking, van der Horst,
1999; Entry: Molech]
It is
known from the Bible that the sacrifice of animals in the Hebrew tradition long
pre-dated the scattering of the nations in the days of Babel, (Genesis 4:4;
11:8, 9) It is the firm contention,
therefore, of those with a Biblical faith that the manner of worship seen among
the heathen people toward their gods was a misrepresentation of the sacrifice
of Christ which the true sacrifices were originally intended to convey. The Gentiles gradually began to lose the
concept of a loving Creator whose purpose for the system of sacrifices was to
teach them respect for life, and that the wages of sin is death. Instead, these nations began to see the
god/gods as forces or beings that needed to be appeased, and primarily by
blood.
We note
that while regular food could occasionally be offered to these various deities,
in times when a great sacrifice was needed, such as the “military emergency”
cited above, only blood would do.
This is
key to understanding James’ words in Acts 15, because we read that in the time
of the apostles this pagan mindset had not changed at all. Paul tells us, “Whatsoever is sold in the
shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.” (1Corinthians
10:25) He goes on to explain that if
you know the food was offered to idols you should abstain; but since we
know that there is only one true Creator, it will not affect our faith if we
later find out that we have eaten something that had been previously offered as
a sacrifice. (see also 1Corinthians 8:4-8)
What is significant here is that “whatsoever is sold in the shambles”
was primarily meat, for the word in Greek, makellon, was specifically a “meat
market.” In addition, one whose faith was weak about such matters, or one who
was “strong,” yet wished to avoid offending the weak, would eat “herbs,”
vegetables only, to avoid offending Yahweh by touching something that was once
placed on the altar of a carnivorous god. (Romans 14:2, 1Corinthians 8:13)
The
issue was always one of “meat” offered to idols, and the blood contained in
that meat was sacred to the spirits receiving these sacrifices. The pagans had no second thoughts about
using the same meat for food thereafter, and even making a profit from the
excess by selling it off to the general consumer. Thus, while in both Judaism and paganism sacrifices were offered
to the respective deities, what was done with the sacrificial elements thereafter
was quite different, and showed that blood was sacred to Yahweh in a very
different way than it was sacred to Ba’al or Molech.
The
above verse in 1 Corinthians 10 will also be significant when we are discussing
whether or not there is a need for “koshering” as the term is currently used,
but for now it should be apparent that the instruction of James (which follows
right after a reference to idols) is in harmony with Paul’s instructions, to
avoid the appearance of giving any credibility to idols for the sake of the
consciences of others.
Finally,
there is a medical reason for avoiding the ingestion of blood. This, again, is not explicitly stated, but
it is well known today that many of the diseases carried by livestock are
transmitted through the blood. We are
thus able to understand some passages of the Old Testament that have hitherto been
seen as almost arbitrary promises for protection. For example, “O that there were such an heart in them, that they
would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with
them, and with their children for ever!” (Deuteronomy 5:29)
And
more specifically, “If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of Yahweh thy
Almighty, and wilt do that which is right in His sight, and wilt give ear to
His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of these diseases
upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians; for I am Yahweh that
healeth thee.” (Exodus 15:26)
It is
true that there is divine protection offered to those who serve Yahweh. It is true that He will work miracles to
preserve those for whom He has a purpose in this world. Yet in a far more mundane (but no less
significant!) sense, the commandments, statutes and so on that He has given us
are given for the same reason. He did not have to explain to His people why a
leper should cover his upper lip when speaking. (Leviticus 13:45) The
disease could be caught through particles expelled in the breath, but the
layman did not need to understand the science of microbiology in order to reap
the benefit of obedience. Similarly,
Yahweh did not take the time to explain the concept of “clogged arteries” to
the Israelites when telling them to avoid cholesterol-laden foods like
lobster. Now, of course, we are blessed
to see more deeply into His plans, but His instructions for us do not become
valid only when we understand them.
There is a place for questioning, but this does not do away with the
need for trust.
It is
far safer, from a medical standpoint, to remove the blood from meat before it
is eaten. This was just as true
thousands of years ago as it is today, but fortunately Yahweh did not force us
to wait until these latter days to benefit from a healthy diet.
To
review, we find in the Old Testament three reasons for the instruction against
eating blood:
a)
It was to provide a spiritual
lesson, that blood is equivalent to life, and when the blood is removed from a
creature, it will die. This blood, this
life, is sacred to the One who first created that life, and points out both the
principle that the wages of sin is death (because sacrifices were necessary for
the cleansing of sin), and that a final Sacrifice would be provided for the
sins of mankind in the fullness of time.
b)
It was to make a clear
distinction between the pagan nations, who ate the blood in the meat of their
sacrifices after offering them to their gods, and the religion of Yahweh that
held respect for creatures of every kind, and had an intelligent Deity who was
not appeased by the suffering of other beings.
c)
It was yet another in a
comprehensive list of “commandments” that was designed to keep the followers of
the Creator from coming down with the diseases commonly found in heathen lands,
such as Egypt from which they were being led.
If we
understand these things, the principles should become readily apparent upon
meditation, and we will thus be able to accomplish what, for the Christian, is
a clear instruction from the Father of Spirits: “I beseech you therefore,
brethren, by the mercies of Elohim, that ye present your bodies a living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto the Almighty, which is your reasonable [Greek:
logikain – logical, intelligent] service.”
It is
not reasonable for Christians to ignore James’ words in Acts 15, because we see
clearly the importance of the Gentiles’ withdrawing themselves from pagan
practices, coming to more clearly appreciate the sacrificial system that
foreshadowed their newly acquired faith, and living in a healthy manner of
which the Almighty has said through His servant, “Beloved, I wish above all
things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.”
(3John 1:2) The Hebrews, of course,
were already enjoying the benefits of these things, but Yahshua “hath broken
down the middle wall of partition” between the Hebrew and the Gentile,
(Ephesians 2:14) and there were to be no second-class citizens of this
Everlasting Kingdom.
There
is almost always a way to take a good principle to unreasonable extremes. If such a way exists, you can be certain
that mankind will find it.
Furthermore, you can be just as certain that, if they are conscientious
enough, and have Judeo-Christian leanings, they will build what appears to be a
convincing case for their position from the Bible. Thus, we will have a multitude of voices (as over every current
Christian doctrine) all claiming (with conviction and compiled evidence) to be
right… and the result is confusion.
This is
why it is of primary importance that we understand the reason Yahweh gave us
His instructions, so that we can know, based on the principles, whether or not
we are completely meeting His requirements or, on the other hand, whether or
not we are going too far.
For
example, some believe that since Yahweh forbids His people from eating “all”
blood, and it is impossible to remove “all” blood from animal foods, this
amounts to a prescription for strict vegetarianism among Christians. While there are some who genuinely believe
this, the Scriptures reveal an entire nation of Torah-observant individuals who
kept the law concerning avoiding blood to the full satisfaction of Heaven, yet
ate meat.
It says
in the Bible, as we have seen, “Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of
blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.” (Leviticus 7:27) Yet the instructions given for the
preparation of this meat for eating are also provided in clear, non-technical
language. “And Moses said unto Aaron
and to his sons, ‘Boil the flesh at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation;
and there eat it with the bread that is in the basket of consecrations, as I
commanded, saying, Aaron and his sons shall eat it.’” (Leviticus 8:31)
Alternately,
“Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it
out from the sheep, or from the goats.
And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and
the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the
evening. And they shall take of the
blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the
houses, wherein they shall eat it. And
they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread;
and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire his
head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.” (Exodus 12:5-9)
Even
under modern, far stricter kosher laws, we find this:
“Critics
say meat can never be kosher because although blood can be drained from the
arteries of an animal it is impossible to remove it completely from the
capillaries or smaller blood vessels.” [“Religion and Vegetarianism, Food of
the Gods” from The Vegetarian, March 1992 –
http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/foodgods.html]
“It is
impossible to remove blood 100% from flesh. Even we Jews do not do that. Merely
removing blood by salting or grilling the meat is acceptable to us.” [Les
Brown, “Blood Transfusions: A Jewish Perspective,”
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9088.htm]
(NOTE:
Websites being cited here do not necessarily constitute an endorsement of their
beliefs.)
Let the
reader remember, for later reference, that cooking the meat properly is an
acceptable means in the original Jewish mindset to remove blood for the purpose
of eating. But for now the point is
this: if it were necessary to remove every molecule of blood to fulfill either
the spiritual or medical principles outlined earlier in this article, no meat
eating could ever have been sanctioned by the Almighty. Yet we find that even in the divine service,
such practices were an integral part of the system of life. The more stringent interpretations some
place on the instruction to avoid blood in meat are, therefore, completely
groundless.
More
significantly, we now go back to that verse in 1 Corinthians and read, “Whatsoever
is sold in the shambles [meat markets], that eat, asking no question for
conscience sake,” (1Corinthians 10:25) referring again to the consciences of
the onlookers.
Is it
necessary for a Christian to obtain only kosher meats in order to be true to
the instructions given in the New Testament?
If by “kosher” the current system found in Rabbinical Judaism is meant,
the answer is an obvious “No.”
While
even those who keep kosher will admit that not “all” the blood is removed, we
find Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians (given after the Jerusalem Council’s
decision) that meat found even in Gentile markets was perfectly acceptable
unless it was known to have been offered to idols. This would be unheard of in Judaism today, yet we find the
principles described all down through the Bible expressed here. In addition, the idea is made clearer still
by James’ admonition for the Gentiles to avoid “things strangled,” (Acts 15:20)
the word there signifying a manner of death in which no blood was removed at
all. If the meat was reasonably clean,
and not known to be sacrificed to idols, it was to be received with
thanksgiving. Blood was never seen as
any kind of a poisonous substance (either physically or spiritually), yet some
groups will attach mystical, almost magical, significance to it, to their own
hurt.
For
example, Jehovah’s Witnesses will teach that even blood transfusions are
forbidden by James’ statement in Acts 15, though neither the wording nor the
principle could have possibly expressed this sentiment. No pagan culture had either the means or
rituals relating to the exchange of blood, nor is properly screened blood a
health risk. Of course, accidents can
happen in any field, yet we do not tell all construction workers to stop
putting up buildings – thus to say, “People have gotten sick from those things”
is not evidence that it is an intrinsically forbidden act. Again, by seeing the principles behind the
instructions, we can tell what is within the spirit of Christ, and what is
not. To make this position being
described even more clearly invalid, there is an “even if” argument.
That is
to say, “even if” all that Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed about the Scriptural
evidence were true, (which it isn’t) it would still not justify their
position. Even if there was a
commandment to avoid blood transfusions as clearly stated as the Sabbath, or to
avoid stealing, in a situation where a life is in danger the Messiah taught
that this was the more important commandment: to preserve life, to show
love. He said to the Pharisees, “What
man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a
pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?” (Matthew
12:11) Carrying sheep about was, by
anyone’s standards, “work,” yet for the sake of even an animal, the commandment
was designed to be a blessing to us, not a restriction. (see verse 12) And again, built right into the Old
Testament statutes was the permission for a poor man to take what he did not
technically own if he was in need of food; in fact, the landowners were
commanded to ensure that there would be enough for them to take if their need
dictated such. (Leviticus 19:9, 10; Ruth 2:2; Mark 2:23)
On the
subject of koshering specifically, those who attempt to take the position that
it is a “must” should understand that the practices and standards involved are
quite recent, appearing around the 1920s.
They grew out of the increasingly stringent laws added to Rabbinical
Judaism after the Christian/Jewish split.
The precise method employed today is a rather complex one:
“Rabbinic
Judaism elaborated a series of practices intended to provide the details of
behavior for putting the biblical restrictions into practice. The rabbis of
Judaism’s formative period laid out complex rules for the slaughtering of
animals and for the removal of blood from meat by salting it and soaking it in
water.” [The History and Development of Keeping Kosher,
http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=78677]
It should
be obvious upon reading the specifics that the level of effort put into it was
never what the Scriptures intended, and certainly never what Christ Himself
taught, as we will shortly see. It is
important to note, however, that there are, even today, different “standards”
of kosher, including “glat kosher” which ensures that there are no punctures or
scars in the lungs of various beasts for the least bit of blood to seep into
the surrounding tissues. Yet even in
this most elaborate form, there remain questions for some:
“Although
blood can be drained from arteries it is impossible to remove blood from the
capillaries and this [statute] could therefore be construed as a prohibition
against the consumption of flesh entirely. In order to avoid this problem the
flesh is burned over a flame or salted for an hour. It might be said that this
is begging the question, for, although it is no longer liquid blood, it remains
in a solidified form.” [“Jewish Philosophy of Vegetarianism,” Philip L. Pick, European
Vegetarian Union News, Issue 4, 1997]
It is
possible to take the practices, and have them replace the principles. This leads to a situation that is as serious
as losing one’s grip on the personality of Yahweh, therefore it is not a minor
issue by any means. For example, we
read this of modern Judaism:
“The
short answer to why Jews observe these [food] laws is: because the Torah says
so. The Torah does not specify any reason for these laws, and for a
Torah-observant, traditional Jew, there is no need for any other reason. Some
have suggested that the laws of kashrut fall into the category of “chukkim,”
laws for which there is no reason.” [http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm]
Let the
reader clearly understand: This is NOT the Christian perspective. Now, it is not the uniform Jewish
perspective either, although “some” have attempted to justify the lack of light
on the subject by saying, “Torah says so.”
The problem is that without the lens of Christ through which to look
some of the things that were given for blessings have become unnecessary and
restrictive (and sometimes expensive) practices. For example, in proper kosher practice today, meat and dairy
products are never eaten together. In
fact, there must be a different set of utensils: one for meat, one for
dairy. The reason? It all goes back to a single instruction,
found in three verses, that has nothing to do with what the practice has
become: “The first of the firstfruits
of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of Yahweh thy Elohim. Thou shalt
not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” (Exodus 23:19, cf. Exodus 24:36
& Deuteronomy 14:21)
Responsible
Bible Commentaries such as (but not limited to) that put out by the Seventh-day
Adventist Church, tell us, “Recent excavations at Ras Shamra, the ancient
Ugarit, a Syrian coastal city opposite the island of Cyprus, reveal the fact
that boiling sacrificial kids in their mother’s milk was a ritual practice of
the Canaanites.” [Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, p.
628] Based on what we have already seen
about the restrictions given on the consumption of blood, it should be readily
apparent that the instruction had nothing whatsoever to do with the inherent
qualities of meat and/or dairy, but the restriction of a specific practice for
wholly spiritual reasons.
We must
be careful when discussing these matters, for they are sensitive, and many
people believe these things conscientiously.
And, of course, modern understanding does not limit the importance of
what is written. On the other
hand, it shows a need for CARE in applying the laws of the Most High. As I’ve mentioned, if seen through Christian
eyes, the principles become clear. We
never obey merely “because Yahweh said so” but because we have developed a
relationship of trust with Him. Through
Christ we have this statement from the Creator Himself, “Henceforth I call you
not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I
have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have
made known unto you.” (John 15:15) That
is the perspective of the New Covenant.
Now,
some may say, “Well, it was acceptable for Jews to have lower standards back
then, but now that we have the technology to remove every drop of blood from
the meat, we must do so as a matter of duty.”
There
is a problem with this idea. Actually,
there are three main problems with this idea.
First,
no long process of salting, chemical treatment, soaking, etc. will remove every
drop of blood. If ritual or biological
defilement came from the ingestion of any blood at all, vegetarianism would be
the only viable alternative (and some do believe it is). While Adventists in general promote
vegetarianism as the best diet as a rule, we freely acknowledge that there is
no Biblical precedent for forbidding those meats that are created to be
received with thanksgiving, (1Timothy 4:3, 4) even if prepared by the “Gentiles,”
and we realize that matters of diet in this regard were never the domain of the
Church, but matters of individual choice. (Romans 14:1-5) The characteristics of the latter-day Church
of Christ are that they keep the commandments of Yahweh, and have the faith of
Yahshua. (Revelation 14:12) These two,
if applied properly, will lead to an inherent unity in all necessary things
without any artificial help.
Second,
the original standards of blood removal led to sacrifices that were part of the
very “sacred service” of the Temple of Yahweh.
If it were necessary for the meat to be impossibly bloodless for
spiritual reasons, this could not by any means have been the case.
Third,
and this relates to the health question also, Christ expressed some contempt
for the more stern requirements of Hebrew practice long before the current
kosher laws were developed. Even
putting aside the matter of washing before meals to cleanse away the defilement
of touching Greeks and Samaritans (remnants of which survive in current
practices, such as the forbidding of wine made by non-Jews), we read this, “Woe
unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the
weightier matters of the law: judgment, mercy, and faith. These ought ye to have done, and not to
leave the other undone. Ye blind
guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:23, 24)
Now,
what can this possibly have to do with diet?
There’s obviously a reference to straining gnats out of drink, and
swallowing camels, but aren’t these merely hyperbolic examples to demonstrate a
principle of going to extremes?
Yes,
they are. Yet we find wisdom in looking
at why these are valid examples of extremes. We note that in the first part of the statement, Christ is
telling them that they should indeed tithe all they own, but not to forget the “weightier
matters” of the law. The principles
were the more important factors by far.
Now, some may think, “Well, if they WERE to do the first without leaving
the second undone, doesn’t that mean they were right to strain out the gnats,
but just to avoid also swallowing camels?”
This is
where the hyperbole comes in; the Pharisees were truly neglecting the
principles of the law, therefore they were truly correct to tithe. On the other hand, they were not literally
swallowing camels; thus the statement that they were straining at gnats was
designed specifically to awaken a conviction of blind legalism in the minds of
His hearers.
In
other, simpler, terms, the Messiah is pointing out that too much focus on
matters that are specifically described as “lesser” will inevitably lead to
overlooking something important. Gnats,
of course, were not among the clean foods, and thus as forbidden for
consumption as blood, yet it would be an error (specifically chosen for its
ridiculous nature) to spend one’s time developing means to ensure that one’s
food and drink were 100% gnat-free. The
principle, as in all these things, should be obvious: while reasonable care is
a necessary part of Christian conduct, defilement does not come from the
inclusion of that which would require extraordinary means to avoid.
Now,
having said all that, we do not wish to take a position based on impulse here;
that is not a reasonable course of action to pursue. To say, “We believe the Jews are too extreme in their practice of
kosher, therefore the whole thing is automatically pointless” is not a good
idea. We must examine it from a
strictly Biblical perspective, and see if, in fact, what they are doing is
necessary for the Christian lifestyle, which is what this article has attempted
to do.
While
the Scriptures tell us “the blood is the life” this should not be taken to mean
that we must dedicate our lives to dealing with issues of blood. At least, not with blood issues that relate
to food. The blood of Yahshua is the
fulfillment and culmination of every drop that was ever shed by a Levitical
priest for the sins of his people, and this must ever be our central theme.
The
Hebrews received instructions about the proper way to prepare and handle food
from the mouth of the Creator’s messenger, and they put them into
practice. The “higher” standards that
developed within Judaism after the time of Christ are not by any means binding
on the Christian, for the Scriptures already point us to the principles that
the instructions were designed to express.
With the “mind of Christ,” (1Corinthians 2:16) the Church of the Messiah
is in THE unique position to discuss and come to conclusions on the matter of
foods with as much authority as it originally did in Acts 15.
Thus we
come full circle, and find instruction from our forerunners such as James and
Paul, as well as continuing guidance as a people from the Holy Spirit. (John
16:13) Paul, in fact, tells us (if this
much misunderstood passage is translated directly from Greek): “Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of
the New Moon, or of the Sabbath, which are a shadow of things to come, but the
Body of Christ.” (Colossians 2:16)
It is
the Body of Christ that has the ability to loose and to bind, (Matthew 18:18)
and has been privileged to be called the “salt of the earth;” to bless it by
reflecting the Messiah to all with whom its members come in contact. (Matthew
5:13) It is the Church (and the true
one only) that knows where its authority over individual lives ends, and will
employ no force to make its opinions count. (1Corinthians 6:1)
So
what, then, shall we conclude about the matter of blood?
We find
that the primary reason for the statutes restricting the use of blood in food
were spiritual, as expressed in both the Old and New Testament passages. We find that there is, indeed, a health
component to Yahweh’s law and therefore, while eating blood today will not
necessarily identify one with an anti-Christian religion, there is still great
value in the principle underlying the instructions.
We find
that while reasonable care must be exercised in ensuring that our food is clean
and free of defilements including blood, for purposes of both health and
spirituality, properly washing and cooking the meat fulfils every particular of
what Yahweh declared in the dietary plan for His people.
A word
should be said here, before concluding, about types of meat.
The
distinction between “red” meat and “white” meat does not factor into this
discussion very much. Meat is
considered “red” based upon the type of animal, such as cow and ox, and not
relative blood content. The reason for
the designation by color is because, due largely to the diet of grazing
animals, a protein called myoglobin is present in the meat that makes it
appear darker and, thus, red. This is
not to be confused with “dark” meat, which can come from any animal (red or
white), and indicates only a high presence of muscle tissue.
Interestingly
enough, since the practical distinction between red and white meat is based on
the type of animal from a human digestive perspective, pork is considered “red”
meat by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “because it contains more myoglobin
than chicken or fish. When fresh pork is cooked, it becomes lighter in color,
but it is still a red meat. Pork is classed as ‘livestock’ along with veal,
lamb and beef. All livestock are considered ‘red meat.’”
[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/pork.htm]
White
meat consists primarily of poultry and fish, due to the myoglobin levels and,
despite the pork industry’s slogan: “The Other White Meat,” pigs (contrary to
the wishes of some) do not fly. For
many Christian groups, such as we Adventists, this is a rather moot point
anyway, since we continue to see validity in the laws of “clean and unclean”
animals that existed long before the Law of Moses, (Genesis 7:2) were
understood as valid by the apostles after Christ’s death, having obtained no
understanding from His words in Matthew 15 that He was setting them aside,
(Acts 10:14) and will continue to be important right up until the end of the
world. (Isaiah 66:17)
Staying
with this current topic, however: red meat, if properly cleaned, can contain as
little blood as white. Due to the
density of the meat itself, however, it may be more difficult to get to this
level, and this (and other relevant factors) should be taken into account when
selecting the staple meat for one’s home.
Ultimately,
in this matter each will have to be convinced in his own mind; however, if we
make the Bible the standard, and not the traditions of men whose practices were
already seen as extreme by the Messiah before they moved toward still greater
stringency in their dietary laws, the Christian’s path should be clear. The statement of Yahshua regarding their
straining at gnats is not an automatic indictment of every practice Rabbinical
Judaism developed thereafter, of course; this would be an unfair statement. It does, however, clearly point out a need
for caution in going to extremes on this and all matters.
If a
Christian has chosen to eat meat, and is concerned about his suppliers, he
should certainly check the standards under which they are operating. In these days of additives, poor treatment
of animals, and cutting corners, this should be considered a reasonable
duty. In my home country (and being a
vegetarian myself I offer this only as a matter of interest) chickens are
killed by being hung upside down. Their
throats are cut and they are drained, then plunged into huge vats of boiling
water long enough to remove even the feathers.
This appears to meet with what is described (and thus, intended) in the
Bible, therefore I would not have additional advice for those who purchase
their meat from sources such as this.
As was
said at the end of the original Council in Jerusalem, regarding which we have
the first record of dietary blood being discussed by Christians, “it seemed
good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these
necessary things.” (Acts 15:28)
David.
Home | Contact | More Articles