[Link H]

Does anyone here know if Martin Luther, any other German reformers, other leading figures of the Reformation , or the 19th century German missionary Nommensen ever mentioned anything about eating blood. Perhaps commentaries on Acts 15 would be a good place to look.

I do not believe Christians should eat blood because there is an apostolic instruction against it that 'seemed good to the Holy Ghost.' This also seems to be in line with God's covenant with Noah.

There is, however, a people group here in Indonesia which mostly professes Christianity with a Muslim minority. Among the Christian population, most are Reformed and a minority are Pentecostals. Typically the Reformed pour blood of a big or water buffalo back on the meat and cook it and eat it. Pentecostals oppose this practice. I would like to find Reformed commentary on the issue, particularly from the German Reformation, since this people group was influenced by the German missionary Nommensen.

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by Link H

Does anyone here know if Martin Luther, any other German reformers, other leading figures of the Reformation , or the 19th century German missionary Nommensen ever mentioned anything about eating blood. Perhaps commentaries on Acts 15 would be a good place to look.

I do not believe Christians should eat blood because there is an apostolic instruction against it that 'seemed good to the Holy Ghost.' This also seems to be in line with God's covenant with Noah.

There is, however, a people group here in Indonesia which mostly professes Christianity with a Muslim minority. Among the Christian population, most are Reformed and a minority are Pentecostals. Typically the Reformed pour blood of a big or water buffalo back on the meat and cook it and eat it. Pentecostals oppose this practice. I would like to find Reformed commentary on the issue, particularly from the German Reformation, since this people group was influenced by the German missionary Nommensen.

Ill try to find some time to check later, but you can look at Calvin's commentary on Acts at www.reformed.org/calvinism

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Link H

Does anyone here know if Martin Luther, any other German reformers, other leading figures of the Reformation , or the 19th century German missionary Nommensen ever mentioned anything about eating blood. Perhaps commentaries on Acts 15 would be a good place to look.

I do not believe Christians should eat blood because there is an apostolic instruction against it that 'seemed good to the Holy Ghost.' This also seems to be in line with God's covenant with Noah.

There is, however, a people group here in Indonesia which mostly professes Christianity with a Muslim minority. Among the Christian population, most are Reformed and a minority are Pentecostals. Typically the Reformed pour blood of a big or water buffalo back on the meat and cook it and eat it. Pentecostals oppose this practice. I would like to find Reformed commentary on the issue, particularly from the German Reformation, since this people group was influenced by the German missionary Nommensen.

as weird as the prohibition is... I do not see a biblical precedent to disregard it. I am not quite reformed, but to be honest, I'd love to see any good exegesis on this subject as well. Sounds interesting.

[Link H]

Btw, I would also be interested in quotes from patristic writings and church councils (besides the one mentioned in Acts 15) regarding the issue of eating blood

“BillPreston”
I have a friend who is into the Messianic movement, Jewish evangelism, who has a Masters in Hebrew translation. He explained Acts 15 in away that shed new light on the subject for me.

During the centuries before, during, and after Christ, a debate was going back among Jewish rabbis regarding how to view the Gentiles. Could Gentiles be in covenant with God without becoming Jews through circumcision and prostelytization?

On one side you had very conservative Judeans who said not to eat with Gentiles. Some of these Jews were zealous to convert Gentiles to Judaism. On the other hand you had Jews who believed that Gentiles had a covenant with Noah and could be righteous before God if they did the things the Old Testament implied Gentiles should do. The church’s view after Acts 15 was closer to the latter view.

Eventually the latter view won out in rabbinical writings. The Jews developed the idea that a Gentile could be righteous through the Noachide covenant. They extracted seven principles from the covenant with Noah and the rest of the books of Moses. The idea was that since God made a covenant with Noah, the ancestor of the Gentiles, that they could relate to God through this covenant without having to be circumcised to relate to God through the Abrahamic covenant. The seven Noachide principles for a Gentile to follow to be righteous had to do with not eating parts off of live animals (eating blood still in the meat) abstaining from fornication, idolatry, establishing courts of law and things of that nature.

If we keep this background information in mind when reading Acts 15, it helps us understand the debate. Notice that the chapter assumes that the Jewish believers would keep on living like Jews. They were participating in temple ceremonies. They probably tried to keep kosher and keep all the other laws. This council was not about a Jewish Christian’s right to eat pork. The issue was whether or not the Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, also. Notice that Paul participated in a temple ceremony and paid for others to do so, partly to demonstrate that he was not teaching Jews not to circumcise their children. Paul taught for those called in circumcision not to seek to be made uncircumcised. He also circumcised Timothy, born to a Jewish mother, but did not circumcise the Gentile Titus, and Titus was not compelled by Jewish believers in Jerusalem to be circumcised.

So back to Acts 15. Some Pharisees in the church thought the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and commanded to obey the law of Moses. But look at the position put forth by James that the other apostles and elders perceived to be in line with the Spirit’s will. Gentiles were to refrain from things strangled and from blood. This is a principle of the Noachide covenant found in Genesis, that Noah’s descendants were given animal meat to eat, even creeping things, but were not to eat the blood. The blood should be poured out on the ground by means of slaughter, not left in the meat as is done in strangling. Gentiles should not eat the blood of the animal.

The fact that God made a covenant with Noah implies that he and his descendants were to worship God. Leviticus also lists idolatry among sis for which God drove Gentiles out of the land of Canaan, indicating this was a sin for the Gentiles as well. Various sexual sins were also listed among the reasons for God driving the Gentile tribes out of Canaan, and we see a prohibition on fornication in Acts 15 also.

The prohibition on things strangled and from blood makes perfect sense if James, under the Spirit’s leading, was interpreting the Old Testament to show that Gentiles had a covenant with God through Noah. James also backed up the idea that God was calling Gentiles to Himself with a quote from Amos. Since it was without vowel points, the passage could refer to ‘Edom’ or to ‘Adam’. James takes the later approach, interpreting the passage to refer to ‘Adam’ or man. The version James used apparently had one letter different from the one used to translate most Bible’s today, according to my Hebrew Bible expert friend.

I know that Tertullian took the prohibition on eating blood seriously, and indicated other Christians did to. In his Apology, he answered the rumor against Christians that was formerly circulated against Jews, that they ate babies. He argued that Christians did not eat the blood of innocent animals, so they would not eat babies. I can imagine some pagans did eat blood, whether cooked in certain foods, raw, or in strangled meat, and that the issue came up from time to time when Christians declined to eat blood.