A question regarding blood

[paidion]

In Acts 15, the Council at Jerusalem passed down the decision not to trouble the Gentile converts with certain Jewish practices. The summarization of their discussion was to tell the Gentile believers in Messiah to abstain from things contaminated by idols, from fornication, from that which is strangled, and from blood.

If they were to abstain from blood, how could they reconcile partaking of the Eucharist? I’m not understanding that if the bread and wine are truly the body & blood of Messiah, then how is that not only breaking the Law, but breaking the rules set forth by the Council at Jerusalem as well?

shalom

 

[Gibberwock]

Consuming blood, in the forbidden sense found in the Mosaic law and in this passage from Acts, is not the same thing as consuming the Body and Blood of Christ, the risen Lord. If this were the case, why would Christ tell us to figuratively disobey the law and His Church by consuming His Blood? He would not, of course; the problem remains even in a figurative interpretation. Therefore, we can assume that drinking Christ’s Blood is not the same thing as drinking the blood from which the Gentiles were commanded to abstain. When we partake of Christ’s glorified Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, though we are most certainly consuming the actual blood of Christ, we are not committing an act equatable to cannibalism or any other forbidden act (assuming we receive in the state of grace, of course).

 

[paidion]

Consuming blood, in the forbidden sense found in the Mosaic law and in this passage from Acts, is not the same thing as consuming the Body and Blood of Christ, the risen Lord. If this were the case, why would Christ tell us to figuratively disobey the law and His Church by consuming His Blood? That is assuming He did tell us to do so. But, of course He would not and did not. He would not, of course; the problem remains even in a figurative interpretation. Therefore, we can assume that drinking Christ’s Blood is not the same thing as drinking the blood from which the Gentiles were commanded to abstain. Then to which blood does this admonition refer? When we partake of Christ’s glorified Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, though we are most certainly consuming the actual blood of Christ, we are not committing an act equatable to cannibalism or any other forbidden act (assuming we receive in the state of grace, of course).This is the part I do get. How is it that the bread and wine actually become Messiah’s blood and body, but somehow that does not supposedly violate Mosaic Law???

 

[guanophore]

In Acts 15, the Council at Jerusalem passed down the decision not to trouble the Gentile converts with certain Jewish practices. The summarization of their discussion was to tell the Gentile believers in Messiah to abstain from things contaminated by idols, from fornication, from that which is strangled, and from blood.

If they were to abstain from blood, how could they reconcile partaking of the Eucharist? I’m not understanding that if the bread and wine are truly the body & blood of Messiah, then how is that not only breaking the Law, but breaking the rules set forth by the Council at Jerusalem as well?

shalom

God went to great lengths to teach Israel about the value of blood. They clearly understood that life is in the blood, and the treatment of blood through the whole Levitical law was very specific. All these instructions were given to prefigure the excellency of the blood sacrifice of the eternal Lamb of God. In Him, and in His blood only do we find life. However, in John 6 it is clear that this concept cannot be understood by the carnal (fleshly) mind. Jesus repeatedly states His teaching, and that “the flesh is to no avail”. This is a Divine Mystery far beyond the mind of human kind to grasp. We embrace it in faith, just as we do the mystery that our garments, washed in the blood of the Lamb, will be white as snow. It makes no sense to the carnal mind. Anyone who has ever gotten blood on a garment knows that!

The Jewish dietary laws were no longer needed, but in order to assist mixed communities to worship together, the Council of Jerusalem made these decrees to keep the peace.

 

[paidion]

I would assert that the issue in Jn 6 was that the disciple that turned away from Messiah that day took Him TOO literally, when He in fact meant it figuratively. They thought He was really saying to eat His flesh and drink His blood - which would have been completely reprehensible.

This is also why the Council at Jerusalem reiterated the command not to partake of any blood.

I understand that G-d can and does do whatever He wills, but the idea of eating human flesh and drinking blood is as absurd as the idea of G-d creating a rock too heavy for Him to lift. G-d certainly does not owe me (or anyone) an explanation of what He does or why He does things the way He does. Nor do I expect to understand everything with my incredibly finite mind vs. G-d’s infinite wisdom. However, I do not see anywhere where G-d asks us to check our brains out and “just believe” anything.

There are so many passages the Older Testament that specifically point to Messiah. The prophets all talk about who Messiah is and what He will do when He comes to redeem His people; however, it does not say He would throw out the Law. There’s a big difference between fulfilling and disregarding the Law. I cannot recall anywhere in the Scriptures that foretells of Messiah dumping the prohibition on blood and coming up with a practice that is exactly the opposite.

It seems to me that the Council at Jerusalem is highlighting the Scriptures’ prohibition against consuming blood without qualification. It doesn’t say “don’t consume blood - except in this case where you are supposed to ‘just believe’ and do it anyway…”

shalom

 

[patg]

If they were to abstain from blood, how could they reconcile partaking of the Eucharist? I’m not understanding that if the bread and wine are truly the body & blood of Messiah, then how is that not only breaking the Law, but breaking the rules set forth by the Council at Jerusalem as well?
shalom

Since the blood of the Eucharist doesn’t physically become blood in any way we can detect, maybe it slips in through a loophole in the prohibition which dealt with blood as we know it.

 

[VociMike]

Let’s remember that no Christian is actually prohibited from blood. Scripture tells us that nothing we take into our body can defile us, that there are no unclean foods. Christians are not required to use kosher-style methods to remove blood from meat, and never have been. That alone should indicate that the prohibition on blood had a more targeted, specific goal. That goal was to avoid paganistic practices. For a Christian, receiving Our Lord Jesus Christ is not a paganistic practice.

 

[guanophore]

I would assert that the issue in Jn 6 was that the disciple that turned away from Messiah that day took Him TOO literally, when He in fact meant it figuratively. They thought He was really saying to eat His flesh and drink His blood - which would have been completely reprehensible.

This is also why the Council at Jerusalem reiterated the command not to partake of any blood.

I understand that G-d can and does do whatever He wills, but the idea of eating human flesh and drinking blood is as absurd as the idea of G-d creating a rock too heavy for Him to lift. G-d certainly does not owe me (or anyone) an explanation of what He does or why He does things the way He does. Nor do I expect to understand everything with my incredibly finite mind vs. G-d’s infinite wisdom. However, I do not see anywhere where G-d asks us to check our brains out and “just believe” anything.

There are so many passages the Older Testament that specifically point to Messiah. The prophets all talk about who Messiah is and what He will do when He comes to redeem His people; however, it does not say He would throw out the Law. There’s a big difference between fulfilling and disregarding the Law. I cannot recall anywhere in the Scriptures that foretells of Messiah dumping the prohibition on blood and coming up with a practice that is exactly the opposite.

It seems to me that the Council at Jerusalem is highlighting the Scriptures’ prohibition against consuming blood without qualification. It doesn’t say “don’t consume blood - except in this case where you are supposed to ‘just believe’ and do it anyway…”

shalom

Indeed “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb 8:13)

Just as Jesus is the opposite of Adam, so is His blood the opposite of the OT sacrificial blood. He gives us heavenly blood. We know this is how it was understood by the Apostles because of the Teaching they passed on to their disciples. Unless you think that the “real” message got misunderstood and lost after the first generation. As study of the early fathers on this point is helpful.

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” 1 Cor 11:27-30

How can one “profane” the Body and Blood if they are not present? How can one ‘discern the body’ if it is not there to be found?

 

[NotWorthy]

The prohibition against blood comes form the OT teaching that to partake of the blood of a creature means partaking in the life of the creature (since an animals life was in their blood, according to the OT).

So, if you partake of something’s life by drinking it’s blood… (I’ll let you do the math on what this means with the Eucharist ).

 

[paidion]

Let’s remember that no Christian is actually prohibited from blood. So where does that leave Messianic Jews? (Jews who believe Jesus is Messiah) Does that mean that one forgets/denies their heritage when they become a believer? Did Jesus stop being a Jew? Scripture tells us that nothing we take into our body can defile us, that there are no unclean foods.(I’m not so sure about that. If that were true, then why the prohibition on blood?) Christians are not required to use kosher-style methods to remove blood from meat, and never have been.I agree, but that doesn’t mean that Jewish believers are no longer required, does it? Keeping kosher is not salvific, but G-d told the Jews to keep kosher for a very good reason. That alone should indicate that the prohibition on blood had a more targeted, specific goal. That goal was to avoid paganistic practices. But the Council at Jerusalem had already specifically addressed those issues in the part about “abstain from idols”. Abstinence from blood is more specific. For a Christian, receiving Our Lord Jesus Christ is not a paganistic practice.

 

[paidion]

Indeed “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb 8:13)

Just as Jesus is the opposite of Adam,In what way is Jesus Adam’s “opposite”?? so is His blood the opposite of the OT sacrificial blood. He gives us heavenly blood. None of the priests (or anyone else for that matter) ever drank the blood, though. Why would G-d foreshadow everything else Messiah did while He was here on earth except for the “drinking the blood” part??? We know this is how it was understood by the Apostles because of the Teaching they passed on to their disciples. Unless you think that the “real” message got misunderstood and lost after the first generation. As study of the early fathers on this point is helpful. You lost me in these last few sentences. Exactly what was understood by the Apostles? and what was the “real” message?

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” 1 Cor 11:27-30

How can one “profane” the Body and Blood if they are not present? How can one ‘discern the body’ if it is not there to be found?The Messiah would be profaned because His sacrifice would be not taken seriously. If one takes the bread & wine as a snack or if they do it because everyone else is doing it, it is the same as profaning His Name (ie., taking His name lightly, using it in an unworthy manner.) “Discerning the body” is having an understanding of what Messiah did on the cross.

 

[paidion]

The prohibition against blood comes form the OT teaching that to partake of the blood of a creature means partaking in the life of the creature (since an animals life was in their blood, according to the OT).

So, if you partake of something’s life by drinking it’s blood… (I’ll let you do the math on what this means with the Eucharist ). Why, then, is there no where in Scripture that even hints at this idea of partaking of Messiah’s blood? Everything else Messiah did was prophisied in the OT; why not something as essential as this? The fact that it is absent in the OT is far more revealling.

 

[VociMike]

paidion, your quote response style makes it impossible to quote your comments, but I’ll reply anyway. I don’t know what a messianic Jew is. Is it a Jew or is it one who believes Christ is God Incarnate? If the former then you will believe Jewish teachings. If the latter then you will follow the fullness of God’s revelation which he has given to his Church, the Catholic Church. In which case you will follow Catholic teaching. Or you could be somewhere in between and be a Protestant, neither fish nor fowl, following whatever teachings your human abilities discern in scripture.

Now, what is your understanding of the purpose behind God’s OT prohibition on blood, one which, even you acknowledge, has not carried forth into the NT Church?

 

[puzzleannie]

In Acts 15, the Council at Jerusalem passed down the decision not to trouble the Gentile converts with certain Jewish practices. The summarization of their discussion was to tell the Gentile believers in Messiah to abstain from things contaminated by idols, from fornication, from that which is strangled, and from blood.

If they were to abstain from blood, how could they reconcile partaking of the Eucharist? I’m not understanding that if the bread and wine are truly the body & blood of Messiah, then how is that not only breaking the Law, but breaking the rules set forth by the Council at Jerusalem as well?

shalom

what blood is referred to here? specifically the blood of meat sacrificed to idols, the sacrifice to any other God other than the holy sacrifice of the Mass. The Mass is the UNbloody sacrifice of Calvary re-presented. The real body, blood, soul and divinity, whole and undivided are sacramentally (not physically) present under the FORM of bread and wine, which means the accidents, or physical properties of the sacramental elements are those of bread and wine, but the actual real substance of both elements is the whole, undivided Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. You are getting hung up on the physical characteristics of blood, and the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[paidion]

paidion, your quote response style makes it impossible to quote your comments, but I’ll reply anyway. I don’t know what a messianic Jew is. Is it a Jew or is it one who believes Christ is God Incarnate? If the former then you will believe Jewish teachings. If the latter then you will follow the fullness of God’s revelation which he has given to his Church, the Catholic Church. In which case you will follow Catholic teaching. Or you could be somewhere in between and be a Protestant, neither fish nor fowl, following whatever teachings your human abilities discern in scripture.

Now, what is your understanding of the purpose behind God’s OT prohibition on blood, one which, even you acknowledge, has not carried forth into the NT Church?

VociMike: Sorry, not trying to be a pain with quote style, it just makes it easier for me to make sure I am in fact reponding to what is written/commented on.

A Messianic Jew is a Jew who believes Jesus is Messiah. Why must a Jew give up everything within Judaism to be a follower of Yeshua? Wasn’t that the core of the problem with the early believers in Jerusalem? Weren’t some of the Jews trying to compel the Gentiles to be circumcised? Wasn’t the outcome of the Council at Jerusalem that the Gentiles did not have to become “Jewish” in order to follow Messiah? Likewise, why should a Jew have to discard her/his heritage in order to follow Messiah? (ie., Jesus never told his disciples to stop observing Passover, etc. ((they were lasting ordinances for the Jews)) - even Messiah observed Hannukah - aka the Feast of Dedication, etc.)

My point is that the early believers were not compelled to be Jews any more than Jews must become “Christian” (ie., give up their Jewishness) in order to follow Messiah. Keeping Torah was never an end unto itself; rather it was put in place to show us (humans) our total lack of ability to approach G-d on our own merits. So keeping kosher (or observing the holidays, etc) serves to remind us of G-d infinite mercy and goodness - and our complete dependence on Him - for everything.

Finally, regarding your last comment about the OT prohibition regarding blood… one was prohibited from consuming the blood, because the life was in the blood. This prohibition WAS in fact reiterated at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) as well as other places. Gentiles were specifically told to abstain from blood, (and of course, Jews would have already been following this practice.)
I’m not sure why you thought I didn’t think it carried into the NT. It quite clearly does.

On a side note, why is it so often assumed by many Catholics that unless one is a RC, then one cannot possibly have a clue about what G-d is telling us in the Scriptures? Cannot the Holy Spirit give us any sort of insight? It sounds to me as if some RCs believe that there is no way one could have any clear understanding of G-d or of how to relate to Him prior to the establishment of the RC church or apart from it. If G-d could use a donkey to convey His message to a human (Balaam), how much more can/does He use His Spirit to do likewise - especially for those who seek Him? Why is it automatically assumed that if one is not RC, then one only has one’s human abilities on which to fall back?

shalom**

 

[VociMike]

VociMike: Sorry, not trying to be a pain with quote style, it just makes it easier for me to make sure I am in fact reponding to what is written/commented on.

A Messianic Jew is a Jew who believes Jesus is Messiah. Why must a Jew give up everything within Judaism to be a follower of Yeshua?

Is that the same as believing Jesus was/is God Incarnate? If not then we’re really talking at cross purposes.

Finally, regarding your last comment about the OT prohibition regarding blood… one was prohibited from consuming the blood, because the life was in the blood. This prohibition WAS in fact reiterated at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) as well as other places. Gentiles were specifically told to abstain from blood, (and of course, Jews would have already been following this practice.)
I’m not sure why you thought I didn’t think it carried into the NT. It quite clearly does.

As you acknowledged, no Christians (except perhaps for the tiniest fringe groups, and I’m not even aware of any of those) actually avoids blood in the manner that observent Jews do. Did they all get it wrong?

On a side note, why is it so often assumed by many Catholics that unless one is a RC, then one cannot possibly have a clue about what G-d is telling us in the Scriptures? Cannot the Holy Spirit give us any sort of insight? It sounds to me as if some RCs believe that there is no way one could have any clear understanding of G-d or of how to relate to Him prior to the establishment of the RC church or apart from it. If G-d could use a donkey to convey His message to a human (Balaam), how much more can/does He use His Spirit to do likewise - especially for those who seek Him? Why is it automatically assumed that if one is not RC, then one only has one’s human abilities on which to fall back?

There’s only one fullness of truth. Anything else is portions of truth mixed with portions of error. Catholics believe, and the Church teaches, that the fullness of truth has been given to the Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church. Within her will be found all truth, outside of her will be found some truth and some error.

shalom

 

[paidion]

what blood is referred to here? specifically the blood of meat sacrificed to idols, the sacrifice to any other God other than the holy sacrifice of the Mass. The Mass is the UNbloody sacrifice of Calvary re-presented. The real body, blood, soul and divinity, whole and undivided are sacramentally (not physically) present under the FORM of bread and wine, which means the accidents, or physical properties of the sacramental elements are those of bread and wine, but the actual real substance of both elements is the whole, undivided Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. You are getting hung up on the physical characteristics of blood, and the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Thanks for your comments, puzzleannie. Please bear with me. I’m trying to understand how the elements of the Eucharist are Jesus’ body/blood (even soul and divinity). You are correct that I am stuck on the physical characteristics of blood vs. the sacramental presence of Christ. How I often hear (read) it, is that the Eucharist is the actual body/blood of Christ - which makes no sense to me at all.

What is the difference between sacramental presence and physical presence? Can you recommend a good reference to further study this?

many thanks

shalom

 

[paidion]

Is that the same as believing Jesus was/is God Incarnate? If not then we’re really talking at cross purposes.
Yes, a Messianic Jew believes that Jesus (Yeshua) is G-d incarnate.

As you acknowledged, no Christians (except perhaps for the tiniest fringe groups, and I’m not even aware of any of those) actually avoids blood in the manner that observent Jews do. Did they all get it wrong?

Good question. If the prohibition of blood only pertained to the blood of animals sacrificed to other gods/idols, then why was G-d so specific about how blood was to be drained from animals sacrificed at the Tabernacle/Temple in the OT?

There’s only one fullness of truth. Anything else is portions of truth mixed with portions of error. Catholics believe, and the Church teaches, that the fullness of truth has been given to the Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church. Within her will be found all truth, outside of her will be found some truth and some error. So would you say, then, that there was insufficient truth prior to the RC Church? (Just curious)

shalom

shalom

 

[paidion]

VociMike: beg pardon, just realized - wrong quoting style again in previous post…please bear with me…thanks

 

[VociMike]

VociMike: beg pardon, just realized - wrong quoting style again in previous post…please bear with me…thanks

OK, your comments are short enough I can remember them. So you believe that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, excellent! Do you also believe he founded a Church with the power to bind and loose heaven itself, and that would receive the fullness of his revelation and be protected against teaching error? If you do then you need to be Catholic. If you don’t then how do you discern what to believe and what not to believe? How are you different from a Protestant?

As to the blood of animals, as we both agree, the prohibition involved not seeking the life (the lower, mortal life) which was in the blood. But it was precisely to give us his divine life that Christ came, so it makes perfect sense that, having prepared his people with this connection between blood and life, he would then call upon us to partake of his own blood.

And to your last question, yes, there was insufficient truth until God sent his only begotten Son with the fullness of truth which he intended for us, and who gave his Church that fullness of truth to preserve and teach it down the ages.