0

I read about the Council at Jerusalem (the first council despite Council of Nicaea):

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 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." Acts 15:28-29 NIV

In particular on the diet issue, I have 2 questions:

  • What do you mean blood and strangled meat? Means it undercooked food?

  • Which doctrinal segments follow this principle today (I say this because I am a Christian / Reformed and we eat undercooked meat).

  • 1
    This is about kashrut, not whether or not a steak is well done. (Indeed, a steak can be done well, or well done, and a good steak is a rare thing.) – Affable Geek Feb 11 '14 at 16:08
  • I guess you could argue that Catholicism does too as they don't cook the bread after it transforms to the flesh of Jesus. – The Freemason Feb 11 '14 at 17:01
  • @TheFreemason Nice comment, but I'm asking specifically about meat. It's not about transubstantiation or bread. – vs06 Feb 11 '14 at 17:09
  • @AffableGeek Excuse my ignorance about Judaism. Are you saying that the text speaks specifically of "shechita"? Could you say more about it? – vs06 Feb 11 '14 at 17:17
  • 1
    The op should define what undercooked means to them – Kris Jan 22 at 17:09
3

The command to not eat meat with the blood in it has no relation to the coking of the meat. What that is referring to is the commandments from God to the Israelites after their rescue from Egypt.

All Scriptures are quoted from the King James translation

Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Leviticus 7:26 Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.

Leviticus 17:11 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.

Leviticus 17:14 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.

Deuteronomy 12:23 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.

Even though I have no Scriptures which say so this may have something to do with the sacrificial blood of Christ. But that is just a thought.

  • Nice point about the sacrificial blood of Christ, but, Are you saying that the text speaks specifically about drinking the blood of animals (as do some religions from Africa)? Here in Brazil people do barbecue with beef still bleeding, it is possible to see blood dripping. The Mosaic law or even the resolution of the Council of Jerusalem could be applied in this case? – vs06 Feb 11 '14 at 17:23
  • 1
    @vs06 no although the drinking would be forbidden. In order to completely understand this it is necessary to read the whole book of Leviticus, even though only a portion covers this subject. The true intent of this command was to drain out the blood as much as possible, before offering the sacrifice. Although I do not have any Scripture to back this up, I think it may have to do with the blood being the life and since those were a substitute for Christ's sacrifice of his life on the cross, the blood in which was the life was to be placed on the altar in recognition of the life given by Christ. – BYE Feb 11 '14 at 18:11
2

From a Christian's point of view, all dietary restrictions were abolished after Peter's vision of all animals being made clean (Acts 10:9-16). This instruction came before the Council referred to above so, would arguably apply to all Evangelical (Bible-believing) Churches.

The passage referred to above is a compromise document which maintains the unity between Jews and Gentile believers (in other words the Gentiles would refrain from eating certain meats to avoid alienating their "weaker" a.k.a. stricter brothers). We find support for the weaker brother argument in (Galatians 2:11-13) where Peter is criticised for caving in to Jewish pressure.

The issue of sexual immorality refers to the heathen state of the Gentiles before conversion. I can find no support for dropping the latter from the expected behaviour of Christians (see for example 1 Corinthians 6:19), on the contrary Churches that support Gay Marriage and the like have lost any right to be called Evangelical, whether or not they describe themselves as such.

  • 1
    Hello again Dr. This site calls for supported answers. Detailsl here. Also, given that the quesition asks about the teachings and practices of specific denominations, addressing that is needed for this to answer the question. See also "What makes a good Supported Answer" here – KorvinStarmast Jan 22 at 15:07
  • I did address the denomination issue by saying "Evangelical Churches". This could apply to 30% of Anglicans, 70% of Baptists, 10% of Catholics (who by their own doctrine regard the traditions of the Church as being on an equal footing to the Bible). – Dr Jonathan Kimmitt Jan 30 at 11:28
  • It's an unfortunately vague classification, as you point out in your comment. – KorvinStarmast Jan 30 at 13:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.