Must Christians Be Kosher?

V. STREIFLING, PhD | Proclamation! Contributor |

Paul exhorted Titus, “Teach those things which become sound doctrine,”¹ stating that elders and bishops must be able to teach sound doctrine to put to rest the gainsayers. He told Timothy that the days will come when men won’t endure sound doctrine. So today many won’t receive the solid meat or sound teaching of God’s Word, but rather run worldwide with their ‘proof text’ views that may be capable of differing interpretations. So Paul calls for all Scripture to be used as profitable for doctrine,² and Jesus said that man must live by “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”.³

For Christian teaching, it’s necessary to use many Scriptures, instead of two or three selectively cited texts.

For Christian teaching, it’s necessary to use many Scriptures, instead of two or three selectively cited texts. So as we explore this question regarding blood as food, we’ll attempt to teach sound doctrine by using numerous Scriptures, taking into view the analogy of Scripture through several covenants, rather than merely one New Testament passage removed from its own contexts.⁴

A basic hermeneutic is that each text must fit into the unity of the whole; so if a text seems contrary to the normative message of the other scriptures of that covenant, one must find reason for this, and synthesize them. One must not disavow the truth of these other Scriptures if his proof text says something else.

It’s this mistake that leads many to write off the truth of the NT teaching that Jesus⁵ annulled the OT  clean and unclean meats, which many NT passages show were abolished and ended by Christ.⁶ They reject these, using Isa 66:17 which says that those eating swine’s flesh and the mouse will be consumed and destroyed together. Holding that this speaks of Armageddon, they’ll use this proof text to upset the whole New Covenant teaching that “nothing is unclean of itself” and claim that those who teach it are “apostatizing” and “listening to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons”. 

It’s a grievous error to use one’s misinterpretation of Old Testament prophecy⁷ to overturn the entire NT didactic that the unclean meat laws were abolished, so “nothing that enters into a man can defile him…thus cleansing all foods”, as Jesus said in Mark 7.

Approaching this blood question, we must take a number of steps in logical and systematic sequence, that we “rightly divide the Word of Truth”, and thus “teach sound doctrine”. The procedure we’ll follow is:

• We will survey the OT commands prohibiting blood consumption.
• We will review some Special Hermeneutics regarding customs, cultures & norm issues.
• We will note the reasons given in the OT for these prohibitions.
• We will address Whose blood is sacred in the Church Age: Jesus’ or animals’?
• We will review numerous NT Scriptures regarding food and drink.
• We will assess the validity of the OT prohibitive within a New Covenant setting.
• We will examine Acts 15:20–29 within the primitive Church setting to find reason for this injunction.
• We will assess in what way(s) this reason applies or does not apply to us in today’s church.

Step 1: Old Testament Commands Forbidding Blood Consumption

ADAMIC COVENANT

Before Adam fell, within the perfect state in Eden, God gave man only plants as food, but no flesh. After the fall, God revealed animal sacrifices for sin offerings as Abel offered (Gen 4).

NOAHIC COVENANT

Gen 9:3–4   “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.⁸ But you shall not eat the flesh with its life, that is, its blood⁹…Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning…whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed…”

ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

As God’s covenant with Noah was with Him and his descendants, which allowed all men to eat every living thing, but without its blood, so Abraham was under this divine command. Thus, he and his family ate all things. In Gen 12 & 17 God’s covenant with Abraham didn’t address foods, so he and his descendants, as descendants of Noah, continued under the same dietary commands.

OLD COVENANT (Law Covenant for Israel)

Deut 12:15–16 “However, you may slaughter and eat meat within all your gates, whatever your heart desires, according to the blessing of the Lord your God which He hath given you: the unclean and the clean…only you shall not eat the blood;¹⁰ you shall pour it on the ground like water.”

Deut 14:7-19 This repeals permission to eat the ‘unclean’, allowing only ‘clean’ meats, (also detailed in Lev 11). Yet Deuteronomy gives the historic sequence of these prohibitions.¹¹

Lev 17:10-14 “And whatever man of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among you¹² who eats any blood, I will set my face against that person…for the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement upon the altar for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. Therefore I said to the Children of Israel ‘No one among you shall eat blood…’”

Lev 17:15  “Any person who eats what died naturally, or what was torn by beasts, whether he is a native… or a stranger,¹³ he shall both wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. Then he shall be clean.”

Lev 3:17 “This shall be a perpetual statute throughout all your generations, in all your dwellings. You¹⁴ shall eat neither fat nor blood”.

Here, God tells Israel that for them fat is also prohibited as food (it was also used for the altar), and this was throughout their generations as under the Mosaic Law covenant. 

Deut 14:21 “You (Israel) shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is inside your gates,¹⁵ that he may eat it, or you may sell it to the foreigner…”

Isaiah 25:6 “And in this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all People a feast of choice pieces, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat,¹⁶ things full of marrow,¹⁷ of well refined wines on the lees…He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces…”

Step 2: Special Hermeneutics Regarding Customs, Cultures & Norms

We see these laws were culturally oriented, and there were changes in these from covenant to covenant, or even within the same law covenant. Imagine how many misinterpretations may come from trying to proof text how these apply to us as New Covenant Christians! So we must use proper and legitimate Biblical hermeneutics regarding how OT customs, culture and norms are applied to Christians today. 

We see these laws were culturally oriented, and there were changes in these from covenant to covenant, or even within the same law covenant.

Here, Dr Walter C. Kaiser has provided us such hermeneutics in the book Inerrancy,¹⁸ edited by Norman Geisler, in chapter 5, titled “Legitimate Hermeneutics”. The principles he submits are well studied out and of real value—a gold mine in good Biblical interpretation. Kaiser shows two options regarding customs from previous covenants being carried into the New Covenant as a normative for Christians:

Retain both the theology taught, and the cultural-historical expression it had, as man’s headship over his wife, God over Christ, and Christ over the church;

Retain the theology, but the cultural expression is dropped or modified, as mother and son in incest are excommunicated, instead of stoned to death; foreskin of our hearts circumcised—or flesh revoked.

Kaiser observes:

Regardless of the position which the interpreter takes, if he wants to teach with authority of scripture he needs to observe the clues that the writer has put into the text, in order to validate the option he has chosen. No interpreter may, with a mere wave of the hand, consign recognized principles of God’s Word to a mere cultural level in the text, or visa versa…It is imperative to first establish the single meaning of a text. That is, the whole meaning which the writer intended, before trying to establish its significance for us here today.” (p.142)

Kaiser lists 5 hermeneutic principles to help us establish if a practice which includes cultural-historical elements, remains or ceases as a normative in or through the Church Age.

“In every case, the reason for the cultural command, custom, or historical practice must be sought from the context. If the reason for a questioned practice or custom has its basis in God’s unchanging nature, then the practice is permanent for all believers in all time.” (eg. capital punishment)

The cultural form of a command may be modified even though the principle of that form remains unchanged for all subsequent readers” (eg. humility abides, but foot washing as expression may not)

When practices are identified as integral parts of pagan culture and yet also concern God’s moral nature are forbidden in the OT or NT, they are forbidden to our culture as well.” (as sexual sins)

A practice or cultural command is permanent when it is grounded in the nature of God, or in ordinances of creation”. (eg. don’t bear false witness, man leaves parents and cleave to wife)

There is Biblical Precedent for saying that circumstances sometimes alter the application of those laws of God not based on His nature, but rather on His will for particular men and women in particular contexts”. (eg. Ahimelech’s offering the untouchable food to David’s men (1 Sam 21:1-6)).

He concludes:

 There is absolute loyalty in the Scripture to the principles founded in the nature of God, or in the ordinances of creation; yet there is flexibility in applying other commands such as those re. sanitary laws, dietary laws, and ceremonial regulations.”

Step 3:  Reasons Given for These OT Prohibitions

These principles are invaluable for seeing how these dietary laws of the OT apply to us as New Covenant Christians of 2000 AD. For in assessing the reason for the prohibitive against eating blood as we read the OT, we readily see it is based on the Jewish sacrificial laws—not on God’s unchanging moral nature, neither on headship, nor an ordinance of creation. Neither is it Biblically linked to pagan cultural worship. These notices affect the permanency of the prohibition of blood for food, as we enter the NT Christian church age.

Step 4: Whose Blood is SACRED in the Church Age:  Jesus’, or Animals’?

“Eating blood (in the Old Covenant setting) is prohibited. The reason is simple enough. Atonement for sins was made by the sacrifice of the life of the animals as a substitute for one’s own life; and the shedding of blood was the most important element in the expiation of sin. Hence the prohibition on human imbibing.” (TWBOT I, p.191)

We see from Lev 17:10-14, the sanctity of the animal’s blood rested on its use to cover sins in the whole OT, from Adam’s fall to Jesus’ death. Its use was for cultures sacrificing animals to God for expiation of sins. Yet we note that though Adam’s sin may have been so covered, this still does not make the sanctity of blood to be a creation ordinance, for this came only after the fall. Creation ordinances came before sin.

Jesus’ death forever ended the validity of animal sacrifices for sins. 1 Pet 1:18–19 says, “we were not redeemed with corruptible things…but with the precious blood of Christ.” Animal blood can’t redeem—it only covered sins! That is why Heb 10:1 tells us that the Law, with its sacrifices, could not make man perfect. It was not possible that they could take away sins (vs 3–4). God hated sacrifices, so Christ took away the Law Covenant that He may establish the New Covenant of the Spirit wherein we’re sanctified by His blood. (vs 8-10). Heb 9:11–12 says Christ obtained eternal redemption with His own blood—not that of goats and calves! So now it’s Jesus’ blood that is sacred, no longer that of animals!

In contrast to the old law against eating blood, Christians now partake of Jesus’ blood, as he taught in John 6:53-36. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

In contrast to the old law against eating blood, Christians now partake of Jesus’ blood, as he taught in John 6:53-36. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…My blood is drink indeed!  Whoever eats My flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him.”¹⁹

Of Jesus’ blood Paul warns in Heb 10:29, “Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, counting the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of Grace?” So today it is Jesus’ blood that’s sacred.  Animals’ blood is no longer used for expiation. So the reason for its prohibition is no longer valid.

Step 5:  New Covenant Teaching on Foods and Drink

2 Cor 2:14-16 shows Christ ended all these ordinances, nailing them to his cross, so we must not let anyone judge us in food or drink

Col 2:21–22 “touch not, taste not, handle not” all perished 

Rom 14:1–2 “He who is strong in faith eats ALL things” 

Rom 14:14 “I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him who thinks it is unclean, it’s unclean”

Rom 14:17 “the Kingdom of God is not food and drink…” 

Heb 7:11–12  Because Jesus is our New High Priest, there’s a necessary change of the law 

Rom 10:4  Christ is the end of the law, for righteousness for us

1 Cor 8:8  Food does not commend us to God, if we eat or abstain from it we’re no better

1 Cor 6:12   All things are lawful for me

1 Cor 6:13   All things are lawful for me

1 Cor 10:23 All things are lawful for me

1 Cor 10:25 Eat whatever is sold in the market, asking no question for conscience’s sake

Mark 7:14-19 Nothing that a man eats can defile him…thus purifying all food

Luke 10:7–8 Eat and drink whatever is set before you, as they give

Acts 10: 15 What God has cleansed you must not call unclean

Tit 1:14–15  “Not heeding Jewish fables…to the pure, all things are pure”

1 Tim 1:3-7 Teach no other doctrine, our command is Love from a pure heart, etc, from which some have swerved, desiring to teach the law, not understanding what they are saying or affirm

1 Tim 4:1-7 In the latter times some will apostatize, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth…Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused…for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.

…all foods are indeed good and acceptable for Christians. All foods include blood, fat, and things strangled. We must not let others judge us in this, by laws that ended with the OT law, being superceded by the New Covenant Law of the Spirit.

These 18 NT Scriptures speak with one voice that all foods are indeed good and acceptable for Christians. All foods include blood, fat, and things strangled. We must not let others judge us in this, by laws that ended with the OT law, being superceded by the New Covenant Law of the Spirit. We may eat all things, for God has sanctified all for us!

Step 6:  Assessing the Validity of Reasons for Prohibition in Church Age.

From the above step #4, we saw that the reason for the sanctity of animal blood is no longer valid, and from step #5, that all things are good for food, so the law against blood resting on this, is also no longer valid. It also ended with the OT law. “For Christ is the end of the law, for righteousness” (Rom 10:4). 

So, too, the law against fat as food (used for the altar) is no longer valid, for the altar sacrifices themselves ended at the cross! Since its reason is no longer valid, then the prohibitive is also not valid for the Church Age. Eating fat is nowhere condemned in the NT. Rather, Isaiah 25:6 says that God’s feast for all peoples, will include both fat and marrow. 

Comparing Deut 12:15–16 with 14:7-19 we see the laws regarding flesh foods are strictly ceremonial and cultural commands, for what was allowed in chapter 12 is repealed in chapter 14. Thus, there is no morality attached to these at all. So, too, morality must not be attached to the blood that’s forbidden with these clean and unclean foods in Deut 12 and Genesis 9 since the prohibitive regarding blood is repealed for Gentiles in Deut 14. Since forbidden unclean meats are repudiated in the NT (step 5), then, by parallel, the prohibition of blood is also revoked.

Comparing Lev 17:15 with Deut 14:21, we see the precept against the Gentile’s eating a strangled animal, with blood in it, being lifted. This shows the blood issue became entirely a cultural and ceremonial issue limited to the Jew, as the Gentile was free to eat it. It could be sold in the market to Gentiles for their use. Since in the OT (Deut 14) the Gentiles had this liberty, it would be incongruous to forbid them using blood as a NT normative, especially as Christ ended the Jew’s OT law covenant, to which this pertained, and “He whom the Son sets free, is free indeed”. The blood prohibitive that was even no longer valid for the Jew becoming a Christian is much less valid for the Gentile who had no such restriction since the law covenant was established.²⁰

From this assessment we see that of the Two Options provided in the hermeneutic structure from Walter Kaiser (step #2), that which must apply to blood would be the second, namely, “retaining the theological principle” that blood is sacred, but it is redefined in the NT as Jesus’ blood that is sacred—not animals’.²¹

Step 7:  The “Special Circumstance” Reason for the Prohibitive in Acts 15:20–29

Walter Kaiser’s hermeneutic #4 said that circumstances may alter application of ceremonial or cultural commands. We see several good examples of this in the Primitive church, which parallel and reveal the reason for the command in Acts 15:

Acts 21:21-26 The elders at Jerusalem who commanded Acts 15, tell Paul with some brothers to shave their heads, and perform Jewish purification rites that included offering animal sacrifices as prescribed by the Law. Thus, if the Jews accused Paul for teaching contrary to their law, he would remind them of the letter of Acts 15 to show he wasn’t guilty. Thus, they hoped he’d escape the chains prophesied for him.

This shows that the letter and command of Acts 15 regarding blood, things strangled and food offered to idols was for the purpose of giving no offense to the Jews, who the new Gentile Christians were trying to win to Christ. Paul circumcising Timothy for the sake of the Jews (Acts 16:1-3) was an example of “I become all things to all men that I may gain the more for Christ,” which he stated  in 1 Cor  9:19-23.

In 1 Cor 8:4-8 Paul declares foods offered to idols was immaterial, for idols are nothing. This shows again that the letter of Acts 15 was for special circumstances for their time and setting of taking the Gospel “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”²² To avoid offense, they would live above and beyond the New Covenant norms, shown by the 18 Scriptures from step #5, as well as applying the Biblical hermeneutics in step #6.

This also becomes a case in point for hermeneutic #4 for the special circumstances altering application of cultural commands. Being circumcised would cause one to fall from Grace (Gal 5:4) and “Christ profits you nothing”. Yet for the Jews’ sake, Paul circumcised Timothy. And for special circumstances he and his fellows participated in the Jew’s purification rites that required blood sacrifices.²³

Another example of being all things… to gain more for Christ, is seen in Paul’s visiting the synagogues on Sabbaths, to share Christ with the Jews. While he taught against observing their feasts,²⁴ we may easily account for 13 or more such visits in Acts. Yet, Paul railing the Galatians said, “you’re observing days and months and times, I’m afraid for you lest I’ve labored for you in vain!” His concern: their sabbatizing was taking root back in the law from Sinai, of which it is commanded, “Cast out the bondwoman!”²⁵

Step 8: Assessment of Reason and Application to our Present Culture

Scriptures about our liberty in Christ should be tempered with the over-arching of Christian charity: don’t hurt your weaker brother’s conscience by exercising your liberty in his presence. For example, 1 Cor 8:9-13 and 10:22-33 about foods offered to idols; Romans 14:15, 20–21 of eating meat and drinking wine; 1 Cor 9:19-23 of being all things to all people to gain more for Christ; and Gal 5:1–13 when Paul says “Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has set you free”, he adds “don’t use your liberty as opportunity for the flesh”, which may cause some to stumble. Christ died for all, and souls are far more precious than my freedom to eat all things.

Now, 2,000 yrs after Acts 15, most Christians live in very different circumstances from those of the first century. Most have few, if any, Jews in their communities or as regular visitors to their churches. Many countries are Christian, or countries of different non-Jewish religions, and all of predominantly Gentile cultures. Thus, now our daily diets are not offensive to them, so we don’t need to rid our meat of all blood, that we don’t offend a Jewish-cultured brother.

Then we, as Paul, should be all things to all people, avoid eating pork, or blood sausage, or anything else that may offend the Jew.

And, we shouldn’t need to, for the NT clearly defines all as good for food. Some who enjoy blood sausage ought not be concerned that Acts 15 applies to them today, for these were special commands, as licit pro tempra, for their setting and circumstances—but it superseded the NT normative as seen in the 18 NT Scriptures cited above. Neither should we be concerned about pagans who may yet offer their food to idols, before selling it in the market, as per 2 Cor 8.

This also shows the mishap of those refusing blood transfusions, using Acts 15 as a command to abstain from blood. Here is a compound-error, for failing to use all NT teaching, they isolate a proof text, dismissing its context. Moreover, Acts spoke of using blood for food that goes through the digestive system and is eliminated. It never imagined 19 centuries later using another’s blood in one’s circulatory system to save his life from severe blood loss—but not as food. God’s not willing that any perish, and Christ died to save lives, so how well this concurs with God’s love and His will for us!

But our situation would be very different if we were in Jewish evangelism.²⁶

Then we, as Paul, should be all things to all people, avoid eating pork, or blood sausage, or anything else that may offend the Jew. We may attend their synagogues on Sabbaths, respecting the place and day that we may gain them to Christ.

Yet that special circumstance is very different from what we should teach Christian believers, who have full liberty in Christ and who may ‘eat all things’ and by whom ‘nothing is to be refused’. When we teach this “full liberty”, we become “good ministers of Jesus Christ” who are teaching sound doctrine, as Paul exhorted Titus and Timothy to do. †

---

Endnotes

1. Titus 2:1; 1:9-13
2. Tim 3:15–16
3. Luke 4:4
4. That is, the historical, geographical, linguistic, cultural, and religious contexts all be considered in exegesis.
5. Mark 7:14-23
6. Col 2:14-16; 1 Tim 4:1-7; Rom 14:14; Acts 10:9-16, etc.
7. Their error is they forsook the rule of immediate context when interpreting this verse. Here God’s speaking to Israel, who were at that time worshipping idols in their gardens, and eating these unclean animals. He foretold their destruction that came by the Assyrians. This verse is not part of the previous context about Israel’s restoration in the last days. It may be—but not necessarily, a part of the following context of vs 18-21 about their dispersal, and later regathering from all nations where they had gone over subsequent centuries.
8. Some use this phrase to overturn God’s universal descriptives ‘every’ and ‘all things’, by contending God had placed restrictions on the herbs in Eden, by forbidding to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But this gives unreasonable extrapolation of these words in Gen 9, and creates a contradiction wrought by man’s fallen logic, into God’s own mouth. 
9. Nonetheless, while God did allow ‘every living creature that moves’, He prohibited eating their blood—at least of those used for sacrifice. However there is no word about eating only clean or not eating the unclean, as those assume from their extrapolation as in note #7. 
   
   Moreover, these presume that the clean and unclean distinctions existed at Noah’s day, based on Gen 7:2. But vs 2– 3 says ‘7’ of each species of all birds and clean animals, while only ‘2’ of the unclean animals. Yet God told Noah to take only two of all species in 6:19–20 and 7:8–9 says only ‘2’ of all species of birds and creeping things and both clean and unclean beasts entered the ark, (as God commanded in 6:19–20). Besides the number of birds and animals being different, vs 2 treated all birds as the same, while the animals are not. Clearly this confusion was created by Jewish Priests who later added these distinctions into the text, as a proleptic use of language. 
   
   These distinctions came as a much later revelation to Moses (De 12:15 cf 14:2-21; Gal 3:19; Rom 5:20; De 5:3), and they were given as to illustrate the Jews as circumcised being separated from the Gentiles as uncircumcised, (Lev 20: 24-26). But since in the NT God ended this distinction between Jew and Gentile (Gal 3:28) He also ended the clean and unclean foods illustration (Acts 10:9-16, 28; 11:11-18).
   
   As in footnote #7 above, this altering of the text creates an appearing contradiction in Scripture, which is resolved by removing the added distinction of ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ from Gen 7, leaving it as Moses had written by inspiration. Biblical inerrancy pertains to the autographs—not to man’s later changes of the Scripture. Other such additions exist in the Pentateuch as well, as the account of Moses’ death, ‘Moses was the meekest man on earth’, or Ex 20:11 being interpolated from Gen 2:3 and Ex 31:17.
10. Here God continued the normative of eating all things, as given to Noah & his seed, including Abraham with his.
11. In Genesis Moses sometimes used proleptic language as naming places as they were now known, but when they did not yet have that name (as Bethel in Gen 12–13, when it only got that name in Gen 28). It also appears he did this when using ‘clean and unclean’ in Deut 12, whereas this distinction actually came to being at the time given in Deut 14 indicating when these distinctions of Lev 11 came into force.
12. Here the restriction against blood was only for Israel and aliens among them—not Gentiles elsewhere.
13. Again for Israel and aliens among them—not Gentiles in general, living elsewhere.
14. Yet no such prohibition is given to the other nations, showing this to be a cultural command.
15. This repeals the restriction against the ‘stranger’ of Lev 17:15 above. It also repeals the restriction against blood for the Gentiles under the Noahic Covenant. Ie, the blood didn’t need be drained for them to eat the flesh as was now required of the Jew, showing again these commands culturally oriented.
16. This shows that the word ‘perpetual’, as used in Lev 3:17, does not mean ‘eternity’, but “to indicate indefinite continuance into the very distant future” (TWBOT ii, P.672 #1631a). Indefinite means ‘undefined’, ‘unspecified’—not ad infinitim. Thus, some translations use the words ‘to time indefinite’ instead of ‘forever’.
17. Here God promised that in the Kingdom Age, He’d make a feast for all nations (Jews included) with wine, fat and marrow (which includes blood). Thus a coming age when His laws against these would be revoked, being invalid.
18. This writer strongly urges the reader who does not have this excellent work, to obtain it. (Zondervan pub, 1979)
19. See also 1 Cor 10:16–17; 11:27; Mark 14:24 and Matt 16:27, where it’s said we all drink from His blood.
20. This is augmented by comparison with the Sabbath feast day, which the Gentile who was ‘within your gates’ was required to observe. In the New Covenant he has no obligation to the Sabbath, so how much less will he be obliged to keep a blood restriction to which he had already no former obligation.
21. But it can be argued that since some pagans still sacrifice animals as pigs and chickens to their gods, then from today’s milieu the blood of sacrificial animals would be abominable to God—even the Jewish sacrifices still offered, for they still reject their Messiah’s sacrifice. Yet God may consider these as sins of ignorance (Acts 17:30).
22. Romans 1:16–17
23. However, in this situation God disrupted their plan, by having Paul arrested before the final day of the ritual, when they would have sacrificed the animals. Here, God showed there is a limit to what extent we may go, in effort to be all things to all men. In this case, offering animal blood for purification is clearly contrary to NT teaching as Heb 8 to 10, and an abomination against the efficacy of Jesus’ blood that alone can remove sin and impurity.
    
    Neither may we violate the moral principles of God’s law in order to gain people to Christ, as has been the practice of some cults as the ‘Family of Love’ in the 1970s and 1980s, for example.
24. See Bible Answers for Sabbath Questions chapters 12 A & 12 B, re Gal 4, Col 2, Rom 14, Acts 15, etc.
    
    Here consistency would require they also revert to Days of Atonement, especially since there was only one law—not two as taught by Sabbatarians today. (See Bible Answers… chapter 6). Even reverting to Sabbaths, if observed as per the law, required special animal sacrifices be offered every Sabbath (Num 28, Eze 46).
25. Yet this is not to say that Jews would be offended by blood transfusions—for they are not, but willingly use them when and as needed, without compunction of violating Gen 9, Lev 3, 17, etc. This shows the disparity between the interpretation given these passages today by Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that which is given by those who received these commands from Moses, and understood how God intended them to be observed.