Why are Christians told by the Bible not to consume any blood yet are told to consume Jesus' blood?

Question

I understand the blood and flesh are symbolic, to some, but still, the same spiritual implications are there, I presume. Life is in the blood/it is sacred, do not consume it, Jesus' blood is a gazillion times more so, definitely drink it? Is it a contradiction?

Answer 1

The "command" to eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, if it is not understood as the development, in dialogue, of a parabolic teaching, can manifest all manner of strange doctrines. It is a longer passage and needs to be taken as a whole.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. - John 6:53-58

This passage, which is taken so literally by so many, comes at the end of a long dialogue in the synagogue in Capernaum between the Lord Jesus and the Jews who had benefited from the miraculous feeding of the five thousand (John 6:1-15).

Jesus begins in verse 26 by pointing out that what the crowd truly wants in seeking him is more free food and he admonishes them to seek sustenance which does not perish rather than perishable food. This hearkens back to Jesus' temptation in the wilderness and defeats the notion that food and drink which enter the mouth are in view. Even here it is "every word which proceeds from the mouth of God" which is likened to and superior to the kind of food the people seek.

Then comes a section wherein the crowd demands proof from Jesus on a par with the manna in the wilderness to which Jesus responds that the manna was just a shadow which pointed to himself as the true bread from heaven. The crowd says, "Wow! Give us this bread forever", to which Jesus responds:

I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. - John 6:35-40

It important to remember that the provision by God of manna in the wilderness, which this disbelieving crowd appeals to, was in the context of and in response to the murmuring and disbelief of God's people in the first place. The irony is thick.

It is at this point that the Jews begin actively resisting who Jesus is claiming to be, the true bread which came down from heaven. It is also at this point that Jesus begins to respond to their unbelief by saying things that are increasingly difficult for them to understand or accept. In doing so He is applying the same principle which is expounded in the purpose behind speaking in parables:

Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. - Matthew 13:11b-15

Jesus does two things simultaneously in the passage in John 6 which perfectly reflects the purpose of parabolic speech: 1) He makes the topic of bread (coming) and wine (believing) increasingly difficult for the Jews to hear and accept, taking it all the way to the eating of human flesh and the drinking of human blood, 2) He repeatedly tells them that "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him". In other words, just like in Matthew 13, there are those to whom it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven and those to whom it is not given.

The mystery given is that coming to Jesus (seeing Him) is equated with eating His flesh and believing on Him is equated with drinking His blood: "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst", "every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life". Those to whom it is given will know this mystery. Those to whom it is not given will have it taken away.

By the time the end of the conversation is reached (where the "command" comes from) Jesus has heightened the parable to unacceptable proportions for the unbelieving hearers: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

When He is challenged on this by even His disciples (in vs. 60-66) He responds that it is the Spirit that gives life while the flesh is entirely unprofitable. He is trying here to get them away from the unbelievable end of the parable and back to the faith that saves. It is, graciously, another chance. However, He knows that some of them do not and will not believe:

But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. - John 6:64-65

At that point many of His disciples left and walked with Him no more. This is understood from two perspectives, both of which are given in the passage. They left because 1) From the Divine perspective it was not given unto them by the Father to come to Jesus and 2) From the human perspective they would not see and believe what Jesus said of Himself: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. This is where Arminianism and Calvinism meet and can be reconciled (but that is a different topic).

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:14-15

There is no talk of eating or drinking anything either with the believing Nicodemus or in the referenced passage from Numbers. Sacerdotalism, Sacramentalism and ritualized religious activity are always the production of some level of unbelief. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". "Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved". We sinners like to add on all kinds of things to buttress or establish our own righteousness. They don't necessarily negate what genuine faith we may have but, at best, they can certainly muddy the waters and, at worst, they leave us stuck at the wrong end of a parable.

Answer 2

It is not a contradiction. The reason behind both commandments is the same.

For the life (soul) of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.” (Leviticus 17:11-12)

The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9)

After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24)

The understanding is that while consuming blood of another creature, one consumes its life. And that is obviously forbidden.

Jesus (the Creator) on the cross is a new tree of life. Symbolically, eating His body and drinking His blood is like eating from the tree of life. You can't have the everlasting life without eating from that tree.

Answer 3

The blood of the sacrifice is (symbolically) consumed for the same reason its meat is consumed. The eating of a sacrificial animal symbolizes participation in atonement, communal fellowship with God, sustenance for their service, and adherence to holiness standards within their priestly duties. The presence of red wine in the Passover Seder did not begin with the Christian version of Seder, and it always represented blood. The meaning behind it is straight and simple, the consumption of the sacrifice represents replenishes our soul as expiation. Compare why the pagans used to eat the blood of their human sacrifice or enemies in battles, to obtain the power of their life through their blood; to increase power and life.

This Shabbat tractate beautifully explains why do we eat the Passover/Pesach sacrifice:

Shabbat 129a:14 מַאי צׇרְכֵי סְעוּדָה? רַב אָמַר: בָּשָׂר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: יַיִן. רַב אָמַר: בָּשָׂר — נַפְשָׁא חֲלַף נַפְשָׁא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: יַיִן — סוּמָּקָא חֲלַף סוּמָּקָא. The Gemara asks: What are these special needs of a meal? Rav said: It is referring to meat. And Shmuel said: It is referring to wine. The Gemara explains: Rav says: It is referring to meat because the soul replaces the soul, i.e., the meat replenishes the person’s strength. And Shmuel said: It is referring to wine because the red replaces the red, i.e., red wine substitutes for red blood.

The fact that they are to eat all the meat and leave nothing till the morning, indicates that the sacredness of the sacrifice, this is why all the nation of Israel is commanded to observe it (Lev 12:10, 47). The John 6 passage of the promise for life for eating the flesh and blood of Jesus are to be seen in the same sense of covenantal honour and obedience. We are forbidden to drink blood for honouring the value of life that it represents (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Lev 17:10-14). Our source of life comes from God, not from taking someone's life; the ownership of life belongs to God alone. The blood symbolism is not taboo because it is symbolical.

Answer 4

"I understand the blood and flesh are symbolic": for low-church Protestants, but not Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, or Anglicans. Side note, but it matters for your argument.

"Do not consume it": that's in the Law, but per St. Paul we're not under the Law (Romans 8's "spirit of the Law, not the deadness of letter," and the book of Galatians).

There is a note in Acts in which some church council, deciding whether Gentiles had to follow the law, just said don't eat blood or strangled animals or fornicate (Acts 15). But the Bible does not say whether this was the right decision.

So if you're a Christian in most denominations, enjoy your Irish blood pudding if you can stomach it. Jehovah's Witnesses and some others I just learned about in comments have another view.

Answer 5

In my humble understanding setting aside the fact that bread and wine is not literal flesh and blood; Jesus gave his life to us, whereas animals lives are taken from them (by us) and given to God.

Answer 6

Why are Christians told by the Bible not to consume any blood yet are told to consume Jesus' blood?

To some degree this is a misunderstood statement. Jesus himself encouraged us to commemorate his Passion and Death at mass!

I say to some degree because there are some denominations, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses for example, that actually follow the Old Testament guidelines established by God in the old covenant.

Only be sure that thou eat not the blood; for the blood is the life, and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh. - Deuteronomy 12:23

The ancient Israelites of the Old Testament were actually prohibited from a number of food stuffs other than blood. Blood is on one prohibited item on the ancient Old Testament list.

Many Christians hold that the prohibition not to to consume blood was done away with in the New Covenant established by Christ.

There are are many Christians who actually and literally consume blood, at least periodically, so the question of some Christians consuming the Blood of Christ is a moot point. Besides that the theological doctrine implies a greater understanding of what the basic implications are. The whole theological and philosophical understanding of what transubstantiation is can be addressed at a later point in time.

Here I am going to basically deal why some Christians do not believe that consuming blood is now prohibited.

In Acts 10, the apostle Peter began to realize just how different this new Christianity was from Judaism. While praying on a rooftop, waiting for lunch, he had a vision. A sheet was lowered from heaven, containing many different types of animals. A voice encouraged him to eat. Peter balked, realizing that some of the animals in the sheet were forbidden under Jewish law. Three times the sheet lowered, and three times Peter refused.

The vision had a dual purpose. The most obvious was that, under the New Covenant, the ceremonial rules about dietary restrictions had been lifted. Christians are to be set apart and recognized by their love (John 13:35), not by their lunches. The second, and deeper, meaning was that Christ’s salvation was open to Gentiles just as it was to Jews. Immediately after the vision, Peter received a visit by messengers from a (Gentile) centurion named Cornelius who was ready to accept Christ.

Carnivorous Christians know and enjoy the message of Peter’s vision. But the vision does not directly address the subject of eating blood, unless that’s included in the revocation of kosher law.

The Bible’s first prohibition against consuming blood comes in Genesis 9:2-4, where God tells Noah, "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." This prohibition was most likely a ban on eating raw blood (i.e., uncooked meat). For the first time, animals were an allowable food source, and God was making sure that Noah did not eat them raw. A Jewish Targum comments on this verse: "But the flesh which is torn from a living beast at the time that its life is in it, or which is torn from a beast while it is slain, before all its breath is gone out, ye shall not eat."

Later, the prohibition of Genesis 9:4 is iterated in the Law of Moses. Leviticus 17:14 gives the reason behind command: “For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life.”

It’s important to understand that New Testament believers in Christ have freedom from the Law, and we are to “stand firm” in that liberty (Galatians 5:1). We are not under the Law but under grace. “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink” (Colossians 2:16). So, eating a rare steak, blood sausage, blood pancakes, blood soup, or blood tofu may not be palatable to all Christians, but it is allowable.

There is another passage to consider. In Acts 15, a question arose in the early church concerning what was necessary for salvation. Specifically, did a Gentile need to be circumcised in order to be saved (verse 1)? The issue came up in the church in Syrian Antioch, which had a mixture of Jewish and Gentile converts. To address this important issue, the leaders of the church met in Jerusalem for the very first church council. They concluded that, no, Gentiles did not need to follow Mosaic Law; circumcision is not part of salvation (verse 19). However, in verse 29, the leaders compose a letter with these instructions for the Gentiles in Antioch: “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.” At this point, we must keep the context foremost in our minds. These four commands from Jerusalem to Antioch all dealt with pagan practices associated with idolatry. Most, if not all, of the Gentile converts in Antioch were saved out of paganism. The church leaders were exhorting the new Gentile believers to make a clean break from their old lifestyles and not offend their Jewish brothers and sisters in the church. The instructions were not intended to guarantee salvation but to promote peace within the early church.

In short, ordering your steak rare or well done is a matter of conscience and of taste. What enters the mouth does not make us unclean (see Matthew 15:17-18). Eating black pudding may not appeal to everyone, but it is not a sin. We live under grace. We have liberty in Christ. Others may have different convictions about food and drink, and in that case we voluntarily limit our freedom in order to better serve them and God. “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Romans 14:19). - What does the Bible say about eating/drinking blood?

I know that many of you would not eat blood sausage, but I have and it is very different flavour food stuff to eat. At this point, I would like to mention that I know of some Benedictine monks who periodically consume blood sausage, so it is not totally unheard of for Christians to eat actual blood.

Do not know how many Christians are avid hunters or how many have drank the the blood of their first big kill or not. But it is reported that some hunters drink the blood of the first deer they ever kill. Do not think I could go that far, especially with a bacterial issue possibility at hand. Sorry wild game must be cooked thoroughly!

Now seeing that the New Testament frees us from the constraints of the dietary restrictions of the Old Covenant in regards to various animals species and animal products, including blood, it is only natural that the spiritual dimensions involved in consuming the Blood of Christ be normalized within the various denominations that follow this sacred tradition...