Beside its proper sense, the fluid of the veins of men and
animals, the term in Scripture is used, 1. For life. “God will require
the blood of a man,” he will punish murder in what manner soever
committed. “His blood be upon us,” let the guilt of his death be imputed
to us. “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth;” the murder committed
on him crieth for vengeance. “The avenger of blood;” he who is to avenge
the death of his relative, Num. xxxv, 24, 27. 2. Blood means
relationship, or consanguinity. 3. Flesh and blood are placed in
opposition to a superior nature: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it
unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven,” Matt. xvi, 17. 4. They are
also opposed to the glorified body: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God,” 1 Cor. xv, 50. 5. They are opposed also to evil
spirits: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood,” against visible
enemies composed of flesh and blood, “but against principalities and
powers,” &c, Eph. vi, 12. 6. Wine is called the pure blood of the grape:
“Judah shall wash his garments in the blood of the grape,” Gen. xlix,
11; Deut. xxxii. 14. 7. The priests were established by God to judge
between blood and blood; that is, in criminal matters, and where the
life of man is at stake;--to determine whether the murder be casual, or
voluntary; whether a crime deserve death, or admit of remission, &c. 8.
In its most eminent sense blood is used for the sacrificial death of
Christ; whose blood or death is the price of our salvation. His blood
has “purchased the church,” Acts xx, 28. “We are justified by his
blood,” Rom. v, 9. “We have redemption through his blood,” Eph. i, 7,
&c. See ATONEMENT.
That singular and emphatic prohibition of blood for food from the
earliest times, which we find in the Holy Scriptures, deserves
particular attention. God expressly forbade the eating of blood alone,
or of blood mixed with the flesh of animals, as when any creature was
suffocated, or strangled, or killed without drawing its blood from the
carcass. For when the grant of animal food was made to Noah, in those
comprehensive words, “Even as the green herb have I given you all
things,” it was added, “but flesh with the life thereof, namely, its
blood, ye shall not eat,” Gen. ix, 4. And when the law was given to the
children of Israel, we find the prohibition against the eating of blood
still more explicitly enforced, both upon Jews and Gentiles, in the
following words, “Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of
the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I
will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut
him off from among his people: for the life of the flesh is in the
blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for
your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul,”
Lev. xvii, 10, 11. And to cut off all possibility of mistake upon this
particular point, it is added: “Therefore I said unto the children of
Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that
sojourneth among you eat blood; and whatsoever man there be of the
children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which
hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even
pour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust, 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,” verses 12–14. This restraint, than which nothing
can be more express, was also, under the new covenant, enjoined upon
believing Gentiles, as “a burden” which “it seemed necessary to the Holy
Spirit to impose upon them,” Acts xv, 28, 29. For this prohibition no
_moral_ reason seems capable of being offered; nor does it clearly
appear that blood is an unwholesome aliment, which some think was the
physical reason of its being inhibited; and if, in fact, blood is
deleterious as food, there seems no greater reason why this should be
pointed out by special revelation to man, to guard him against injury,
than many other unwholesome aliments. There is little force in the
remark, that the eating of blood produces a ferocious disposition; for
those nations that eat strangled things, or blood cooked with other
aliments, do not exhibit more ferocity than others. The true reason was,
no doubt, a _sacrificial_ one. When animals were granted to Noah for
food, the blood was reserved; and when the same law was reënacted among
the Israelites, the original prohibition is repeated with an explanation
which at once shows the original ground upon which it rested: “I have
given it upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls.” From this
“additional reason,” as it has been called, it has been argued, that the
doctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was, then, for the
first time, announced by Moses, or the same cause for the prohibition
would have been assigned to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That unless
the same reason be supposed as the ground of the prohibition of blood to
Noah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be
conceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from
Noah to Moses; and yet we have a prohibition of a most solemn kind,
which in itself could have no reason, enjoined without any external
reason being either given or conceivable. 2. That it is a mistake to
suppose that the declaration of Moses to the Jews, that God had “given
them the blood for an atonement,” is an “_additional reason_” for the
interdict, not to be found in the original prohibition to Noah. The
whole passage occurs in Lev. xvii; and the great reason there given of
the prohibition of blood is, that it is “the _life_;” and what follows
respecting “atonement,” is exegetical of this reason;--the life is in
the blood, and the blood or life is given as an atonement. Now, by
turning to the original prohibition in Genesis we find that precisely
the same reason is given: “But the flesh with the blood, which is _the
life_ thereof, shall ye not eat.” The reason, then, being the same, the
question is, whether the exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be
understood in the general reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood
is prohibited because it is the _life_; and Moses adds, that it is “the
blood,” or _life_, “which makes atonement.” Let any one attempt to
discover any reason for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere
circumstance that it is “the life,” and he will find it impossible. It
is no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was LIFE
SUBSTITUTED FOR LIFE, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life
of man, and that, therefore, blood had a sacred appropriation. The
manner, too, in which Moses introduces the subject, is indicative that,
though he was renewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a new
doctrine; he does not teach his people that God had then given, or
appointed, blood to make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating
it, because he had already made this appointment, without reference to
time, and as a subject with which they were familiar. Because the blood
was the life, it was sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and
we have in the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its
blood, a sufficient proof that, before the giving of the law, not only
was blood not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial
purpose. Nor was this confined to the Jews; it was customary with the
Romans and Greeks, who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the
blood of victims at their altars; a rite derived, probably, from the
Egyptians, who deduced it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah.
The notion, indeed, that the blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred
to the gods, is impressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology.
animals, the term in Scripture is used, 1. For life. “God will require
the blood of a man,” he will punish murder in what manner soever
committed. “His blood be upon us,” let the guilt of his death be imputed
to us. “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth;” the murder committed
on him crieth for vengeance. “The avenger of blood;” he who is to avenge
the death of his relative, Num. xxxv, 24, 27. 2. Blood means
relationship, or consanguinity. 3. Flesh and blood are placed in
opposition to a superior nature: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it
unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven,” Matt. xvi, 17. 4. They are
also opposed to the glorified body: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God,” 1 Cor. xv, 50. 5. They are opposed also to evil
spirits: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood,” against visible
enemies composed of flesh and blood, “but against principalities and
powers,” &c, Eph. vi, 12. 6. Wine is called the pure blood of the grape:
“Judah shall wash his garments in the blood of the grape,” Gen. xlix,
11; Deut. xxxii. 14. 7. The priests were established by God to judge
between blood and blood; that is, in criminal matters, and where the
life of man is at stake;--to determine whether the murder be casual, or
voluntary; whether a crime deserve death, or admit of remission, &c. 8.
In its most eminent sense blood is used for the sacrificial death of
Christ; whose blood or death is the price of our salvation. His blood
has “purchased the church,” Acts xx, 28. “We are justified by his
blood,” Rom. v, 9. “We have redemption through his blood,” Eph. i, 7,
&c. See ATONEMENT.
That singular and emphatic prohibition of blood for food from the
earliest times, which we find in the Holy Scriptures, deserves
particular attention. God expressly forbade the eating of blood alone,
or of blood mixed with the flesh of animals, as when any creature was
suffocated, or strangled, or killed without drawing its blood from the
carcass. For when the grant of animal food was made to Noah, in those
comprehensive words, “Even as the green herb have I given you all
things,” it was added, “but flesh with the life thereof, namely, its
blood, ye shall not eat,” Gen. ix, 4. And when the law was given to the
children of Israel, we find the prohibition against the eating of blood
still more explicitly enforced, both upon Jews and Gentiles, in the
following words, “Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of
the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I
will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut
him off from among his people: for the life of the flesh is in the
blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for
your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul,”
Lev. xvii, 10, 11. And to cut off all possibility of mistake upon this
particular point, it is added: “Therefore I said unto the children of
Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that
sojourneth among you eat blood; and whatsoever man there be of the
children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which
hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even
pour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust, 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,” verses 12–14. This restraint, than which nothing
can be more express, was also, under the new covenant, enjoined upon
believing Gentiles, as “a burden” which “it seemed necessary to the Holy
Spirit to impose upon them,” Acts xv, 28, 29. For this prohibition no
_moral_ reason seems capable of being offered; nor does it clearly
appear that blood is an unwholesome aliment, which some think was the
physical reason of its being inhibited; and if, in fact, blood is
deleterious as food, there seems no greater reason why this should be
pointed out by special revelation to man, to guard him against injury,
than many other unwholesome aliments. There is little force in the
remark, that the eating of blood produces a ferocious disposition; for
those nations that eat strangled things, or blood cooked with other
aliments, do not exhibit more ferocity than others. The true reason was,
no doubt, a _sacrificial_ one. When animals were granted to Noah for
food, the blood was reserved; and when the same law was reënacted among
the Israelites, the original prohibition is repeated with an explanation
which at once shows the original ground upon which it rested: “I have
given it upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls.” From this
“additional reason,” as it has been called, it has been argued, that the
doctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was, then, for the
first time, announced by Moses, or the same cause for the prohibition
would have been assigned to Noah. To this we may reply, 1. That unless
the same reason be supposed as the ground of the prohibition of blood to
Noah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be
conceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from
Noah to Moses; and yet we have a prohibition of a most solemn kind,
which in itself could have no reason, enjoined without any external
reason being either given or conceivable. 2. That it is a mistake to
suppose that the declaration of Moses to the Jews, that God had “given
them the blood for an atonement,” is an “_additional reason_” for the
interdict, not to be found in the original prohibition to Noah. The
whole passage occurs in Lev. xvii; and the great reason there given of
the prohibition of blood is, that it is “the _life_;” and what follows
respecting “atonement,” is exegetical of this reason;--the life is in
the blood, and the blood or life is given as an atonement. Now, by
turning to the original prohibition in Genesis we find that precisely
the same reason is given: “But the flesh with the blood, which is _the
life_ thereof, shall ye not eat.” The reason, then, being the same, the
question is, whether the exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be
understood in the general reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood
is prohibited because it is the _life_; and Moses adds, that it is “the
blood,” or _life_, “which makes atonement.” Let any one attempt to
discover any reason for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere
circumstance that it is “the life,” and he will find it impossible. It
is no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was LIFE
SUBSTITUTED FOR LIFE, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life
of man, and that, therefore, blood had a sacred appropriation. The
manner, too, in which Moses introduces the subject, is indicative that,
though he was renewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a new
doctrine; he does not teach his people that God had then given, or
appointed, blood to make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating
it, because he had already made this appointment, without reference to
time, and as a subject with which they were familiar. Because the blood
was the life, it was sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and
we have in the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its
blood, a sufficient proof that, before the giving of the law, not only
was blood not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial
purpose. Nor was this confined to the Jews; it was customary with the
Romans and Greeks, who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the
blood of victims at their altars; a rite derived, probably, from the
Egyptians, who deduced it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah.
The notion, indeed, that the blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred
to the gods, is impressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology.