Eating Food That Has Blood In It

[Paula]

Thus He declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:18-19, NASB, emphasis mine).

Well, that seems pretty clear. The Lord Jesus says all food is clean to eat, for it isn't food that defiles (and later in the passage He indicates its the heart that defiles), but in Acts James says...

19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. (Acts 15:19-20, NASB, emphasis mine).

Hmm, not really sure how to come to a judgement on this. The Lord was pretty clear that food doesn't defile (but rather the heart does), but James seems to indicate that Gentile Christians (and presumably all Christians) shouldn't eat food (doesn't actually mention food, but that seems to be the implication of the passage) that has come from an animal strangled or that has blood in it. So...

Is it a sin to eat food with blood in it or is it not a sin to eat food with blood in it? And in either case, how do we explain these passages?

[Catholicity]

I like Blood Sausage.... maybe it was a cultural thing?

[Cow Poke]

It's been a long time since I studied this, but, as I recall, this was a compromise, of sorts, because the door of the Church had just been opened to Gentiles. Paul was trying to bring Gentiles in without (as some seemed to want to do) making them become Jews first. Peter, Paul and James, then, were working out the manner in which the Gentiles could be admitted to the Church (so to speak) without insulting or offending Jewish Christians. James had explained that the OT had prophesied that Gentiles would be added, and Peter had recounted the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius.

Some theologians link the word "blood" with the word "strangled", because an animal that has been strangled instead of butchered would still have a lot of blood in it. So I think the matter of blood referred to the excess blood that remained when an animal was strangled instead of butchered (or kosher slaughtered - shehitah). Drinking blood would obviously be forbidden, but eating meat with the amount of blood that naturally remains when properly slaughtered wouldn't be a problem.

[NorrinRadd]

Thus He declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:18-19, NASB, emphasis mine).

Well, that seems pretty clear. The Lord Jesus says all food is clean to eat, for it isn't food that defiles (and later in the passage He indicates its the heart that defiles), but in Acts James says...

19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. (Acts 15:19-20, NASB, emphasis mine).

Hmm, not really sure how to come to a judgement on this. The Lord was pretty clear that food doesn't defile (but rather the heart does), but James seems to indicate that Gentile Christians (and presumably all Christians) shouldn't eat food (doesn't actually mention food, but that seems to be the implication of the passage) that has come from an animal strangled or that has blood in it. So...

Is it a sin to eat food with blood in it or is it not a sin to eat food with blood in it? And in either case, how do we explain these passages?

Keener (IVP Bible Background Commentary) on that bit of Acts 15:

I don't worry about it. In fact, someday I'd like to try things like blood pudding and the "actual" bloody Mary (featuring a bit of pig's blood, IIRC) that Andrew Zimmern sampled on one of his shows.

I'm quite content that in addition to the above words by Jesus in Mark 7, things like Paul's words in Col. 2:20-21 and 1 Tim. 4:3-4 grant liberty here, even if one claims his repeated declarations that the Law has been abolished do not suffice because the supposed Noachic laws preceded the Law.

[KingsGambit]

Technically speaking, meat still has some blood in it even after it's been cooked but I don't think the church leaders in Acts were thinking quite that literally.

I'm not sure what I think exactly but I'm hesitant to write off what they say in Acts as just a compromise because that part also bans sexual immorality (which is of course always wrong too).

[Sparko]

[NorrinRadd]

Technically speaking, meat still has some blood in it even after it's been cooked but I don't think the church leaders in Acts were thinking quite that literally.

I'm not sure what I think exactly but I'm hesitant to write off what they say in Acts as just a compromise because that part also bans sexual immorality (which is of course always wrong too).

The same passages forbid eating food devoted to idols, but in 1 Cor. 8-10, Paul grants liberty in regard to that specific prohibition: Believers are free to partake, as long as their doing so would not be interpreted as idol-worship.

[Cow Poke]

The same passages forbid eating food devoted to idols, but in 1 Cor. 8-10, Paul grants liberty in regard to that specific prohibition: Believers are free to partake, as long as their doing so would not be interpreted as idol-worship.

Well, it goes a little beyond that -- that you don't do it if it offends your brother who believes it's wrong to do. (read through the end of the chapter)

[NorrinRadd]

Well, it goes a little beyond that -- that you don't do it if it offends your brother who believes it's wrong to do. (read through the end of the chapter)

Please be more specific. That doesn't show up in a way I can recognize in the translation I'm using.

[robrecht]

The Kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking. Period.

[KingsGambit]

The Kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking. Period.

But at the same time, no aspect of life is therefore irrelevant to it.

[robrecht]

... I'm not sure what I think exactly ...

When you decide, we can discuss. I look forward to it.

[Paula]

Technically speaking, meat still has some blood in it even after it's been cooked but I don't think the church leaders in Acts were thinking quite that literally.

I'm not sure what I think exactly but I'm hesitant to write off what they say in Acts as just a compromise because that part also bans sexual immorality (which is of course always wrong too).

That is probably the one aspect of the quote that stops me from dismissing it solely as a cultural consideration--that it includes sexual immorality.

[Cow Poke]

Technically speaking, meat still has some blood in it even after it's been cooked but I don't think the church leaders in Acts were thinking quite that literally.

Yes, which is why I think it's actually linking the "blood" with "strangling"... cause animals killed by strangling instead of slaughter will contain far more blood.

I'm not sure what I think exactly but I'm hesitant to write off what they say in Acts as just a compromise because that part also bans sexual immorality (which is of course always wrong too).

Perhaps I wasn't clear... the "compromise" is - let's narrow it down to some basic tenets, and not "the whole Jewish law" thing.