Leviticus 17:10 vs John 6:53

[posthuman]

Blood can be eaten when cooked and allowed to solidify, many cultures eat the blood of animals.

according to the law of Moses tho? we ought to see what rabbi's ruled about cooked blood.
but here in Leviticus they were strictly told to pour out / drain out the blood

so that -- interestingly -- the dust absorbs ((or 'drinks')) it.



btw when i was young i worked in kitchens alot. i've helped prepare blood pudding, but didn't taste it. i thought, 'ew' lol
tho honestly i mean you never fully drain all the blood from meat; any of us who eat juicy cheeseburgers are having a modicum of it.

 

[posthuman]

The law is not to consume the blood of mortal sacrificial animals (meant for the altar of God), who merely pointed to the real life eternal sacrificial Lamb. For eternal life, we do not consume the blood of mortal sacrificial animals, but our sinful human body altars spiritually consumes the blood of Him to which it points, the life eternal sacrificial Lamb, Christ Yeshua, that was slain on the altars of our sinful hearts and minds:

hmm i don't see here in Leviticus that it's talking only about sacrificial animals.
seems to be all animals. typically it's only the priests who eat any of the sacrifices ((setting aside seder)) and this is addressed to everyone, not just the Levites -- also the language is explicitly, whoever eats any blood, whether they are a stranger or Israelite. that pretty much excludes any interpretation that this is only about sacrificial meat.

 

[posthuman]

The Law was speaking literally about the consumption of blood (which is also forbidden to Christians).

Christ was speaking metaphorically and spiritually about drinking His blood. The blood of Christ washes our souls spiritually from all sin and guilt.

thank you, but same objection i expressed earlier - is it God's character to take a thing or an action that is evil when tangible, and call it good when it's symbolic?
can you point to other instances of something sinful when carried out, that's righteous when confined to being only metaphorical?

i don't find this to be a satisfying answer; it doesn't explain anything so much as it just attempts to brush away the juxtaposition as essentially meaningless. the things in the law are all symbolic too, and have spiritual meaning -- and there, eating blood is treated as wicked. something about that is therefore spiritually, metaphorically evil. it's partly because of this, the metaphor and analogy, which the Jews certainly understood there to be one, that what He said is so shocking it causes many of His devoted followers to leave.

IMO there's way more going on here than literal vs. symbol; that to me is a superficial & inadequate explanation.

 

[posthuman]

So the symbol of a serpent was used to represent satan in the garden so it is akin to a Wicked symbol but Jesus also used the serpent as a symbol of wisdom..

thanks --

if you're saying 'serpent' was only symbolic language in Genesis and you've got 'serpent' as both a wicked symbol & a good symbol, that's not the same as an action being evil when carried out but good when allegorical

the Bible doesn't actually call snakes evil anywhere tho. presumably snakes are part of God's creation of all living souls, and as such, part of 'very good' in Genesis 1-2. Christ likens Himself to the brazen serpent in John 3 -- which, interestingly, was later destroyed because it had become worshipped like an idol. that wasn't the fault of snakes in general, or of the actual object, but because people did evil concerning it.
i think it's not snakes that are evil, nor craftiness, but the evil intent of Satan's use of craftiness/wisdom. snakes keep moles out of my garden i'm thankful

in terms of biology (?) Satan is an angel, not a snake. so when he's called "THE" serpent in Genesis 2, in the context of being more crafty ((vis a vis wise)) than the other creatures, it's the same symbolism as Christ uses in Matthew 10 -- that of wisdom. Satan is extraordinarily wise, more wise than any other created being with the possible exception of Solomon ((more wise than any man, explicitly)) and Adam ((because Adam was not deceived -- which, does that mean did Satan try and fail?))

Jesus perfect spiritual flesh is His teachings..

Jesus perfect Spiritual blood is His atoning sacrafice for the forgiveness of our sins..

these are in contrast to worldly flesh and blood which are corrupt..

do you think Christ's physical flesh and blood is/was corrupt?
can i direct you to the significance of 'virgin birth' the entering of sin & death into the world through Adam ((not Eve)) and the biochemistry of the mortagenic factor coupled with the fact that an human embryo receives no blood from its mother?



i'm in the camp of Christ offering His literal blood on the altar of heaven, not symbolic 'spiritual blood' -- i guess along the same lines of thinking as @Blackpowderduelist in this respect that yes, there is great spiritual and metaphorical meaning & significance here, but i take it to be more than just 'mere symbolism' but having a very real & literal aspect too.
that's something i hinted at in a post a little while ago pointing out that in Leviticus 17:13 the blood of any animal to be eaten must be drained out and covered with dust. that's a literal command, but it has great spiritual significance that i think touches on the central meaning of the juxtaposition of do not eat blood vs drink Christ's blood. we're dust, figuratively and tangibly. the blood of living creatures is to be returned to dust, figuratively and literally.
Christ's blood was brought to the altar in heaven - and also sprinkled on the dust at the cross and at His scourging. these are literal tangible events and also greatly significant spiritual things; it doesn't have to be purely spiritual vs. purely corporeal, but God made both and acts in both --
i find it more plausible that He does so consistently than that He calls a tangible thing evil while simultaneously calling the allegory of it good, so i'm not really happy with 'that was literal but this is symbolic' as an explanation. it really doesn't explain thing so much as it dismisses the literal things, and the contraposition Jesus used, as meaningless.

not something to get bitter about -- i'm always afraid of that in the BDF these days lol -- and thanks again i really appreciate you coming up with a thoughtful reply to my objection ♥

 

[posthuman]

Consider why God gave the law to not eat flesh with blood in the first place. I guess there are a number of reasons. One might be that the drinking of blood was akin to the pagan rituals which were going on around the Israelites during the time and God wanted His people to be separate from them.

100%, yes, we need to understand why this law is given in the first place. IMO, this, like all the law, is testifying of Christ. it's literal, actual laws, but they have significance spiritually that points to Him & explains Him and His work, and in so doing also speak of the antichrist counterfeit of Him, when it says 'do not' do such and such.
so something about eating blood has to do with something about antichrist, and something about draining out the blood and covering it with dust has to do with Christ -- we've got this picture of life being associated with blood, and it being covered with dust. we've got this picture of flesh & humanity being made of dust and having equivalence with dust, and we've got Christ being "THE LIFE" and coming in the flesh: kind of like being covered up with dust. life, hidden in dust. God, hidden in human form.
make any sense?



i've heard the explanation before, well they must have been drinking blood in pagan rituals and that's what this is about. but it's 'eat blood' in Leviticus, not 'drink blood' -- a perfectly good Hebrew word for 'drink' exists, but it's not used here. and Moses interprets it to them saying they must drain the blood out of any animal they eat -- so it seems to have to do primarily with consuming a living creature with its blood still in it, rather than about participating in some unspecified vampirific ritual.

 

[posthuman]

As Lev. 17-10 and 11 tells us blood was given on the altar by God for sin.

yes! -- this is a very important part of the puzzle; it's God's own explanation for why eating blood is evil.
because the life is in the blood, and He has given blood as atonement

that's why eating blood is blasphemous: life is in blood; blood is given for atonement.
something about this should teach us also why Christ says He is the true manna, and that we have no life unless we drink His blood. it should teach us that we have to eat His flesh, that it is real food.

if we truly understood Leviticus 17:11 we wouldn't be shocked at John 6, we would expect the Christ to say this; we would know that only the Messiah can say this and that the Messiah has to say this -- that it proves He is the Messiah, that He is God manifest in the flesh. everything in John's gospel is written for that purpose

 

[Adstar]

thanks --

if you're saying 'serpent' was only symbolic language in Genesis and you've got 'serpent' as both a wicked symbol & a good symbol, that's not the same as an action being evil when carried out but good when allegorical

the Bible doesn't actually call snakes evil anywhere tho. presumably snakes are part of God's creation of all living souls, and as such, part of 'very good' in Genesis 1-2. Christ likens Himself to the brazen serpent in John 3 -- which, interestingly, was later destroyed because it had become worshipped like an idol. that wasn't the fault of snakes in general, or of the actual object, but because people did evil concerning it.
i think it's not snakes that are evil, nor craftiness, but the evil intent of Satan's use of craftiness/wisdom. snakes keep moles out of my garden i'm thankful

in terms of biology (?) Satan is an angel, not a snake. so when he's called "THE" serpent in Genesis 2, in the context of being more crafty ((vis a vis wise)) than the other creatures, it's the same symbolism as Christ uses in Matthew 10 -- that of wisdom. Satan is extraordinarily wise, more wise than any other created being with the possible exception of Solomon ((more wise than any man, explicitly)) and Adam ((because Adam was not deceived -- which, does that mean did Satan try and fail?))





do you think Christ's physical flesh and blood is/was corrupt?
can i direct you to the significance of 'virgin birth' the entering of sin & death into the world through Adam ((not Eve)) and the biochemistry of the mortagenic factor coupled with the fact that an human embryo receives no blood from its mother?



i'm in the camp of Christ offering His literal blood on the altar of heaven, not symbolic 'spiritual blood' -- i guess along the same lines of thinking as @Blackpowderduelist in this respect that yes, there is great spiritual and metaphorical meaning & significance here, but i take it to be more than just 'mere symbolism' but having a very real & literal aspect too.
that's something i hinted at in a post a little while ago pointing out that in Leviticus 17:13 the blood of any animal to be eaten must be drained out and covered with dust. that's a literal command, but it has great spiritual significance that i think touches on the central meaning of the juxtaposition of do not eat blood vs drink Christ's blood. we're dust, figuratively and tangibly. the blood of living creatures is to be returned to dust, figuratively and literally.
Christ's blood was brought to the altar in heaven - and also sprinkled on the dust at the cross and at His scourging. these are literal tangible events and also greatly significant spiritual things; it doesn't have to be purely spiritual vs. purely corporeal, but God made both and acts in both --
i find it more plausible that He does so consistently than that He calls a tangible thing evil while simultaneously calling the allegory of it good, so i'm not really happy with 'that was literal but this is symbolic' as an explanation. it really doesn't explain thing so much as it dismisses the literal things, and the contraposition Jesus used, as meaningless.

not something to get bitter about -- i'm always afraid of that in the BDF these days lol -- and thanks again i really appreciate you coming up with a thoughtful reply to my objection ♥

No i do not think Jesus body and blood was corrupt.... But he is the exception.. Because He is LORD..

But for the rest of us.. Our blood and flesh are corrupt.. And we need this body to die to take on a perfected eternal body to enter into Gods perfect eternal existence..

 

[reneweddaybyday]

putting these two passages together raises a thousand questions.
here is a first one:

1 down 999 to go ...

 

[Tararose]

It puzzled the disciples too. I have always found it helpful to look at the verses following this difficult passage.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jesus makes it clear he won’t be physically “eaten” - as he speaks of His actual Body (would be buried in a tomb) ascending to heaven. (V62)

Here Jesus clarifies literal Flesh is not what gives eternal life. But the word of God, every word He spoke.

Gen 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Jesus is the word made flesh. Even they Clearly could not understand this at the time and so they were baffled thinking he referred to eating human flesh.

He spoke of receiving Him to themselves and in so doing, accepting the word of God and it dwelling within. The life giving eternal word. God. God is spirit! His word is spirit and life to us. His word must abide in us and produce fruit. This is the life of the spirit of God (The living word) within us. This is what it means to fully consume Christ - the word of God - that He becomes part of our very being (Just as the physical food we eat becomes part of every cell in our body and makes us grow.)

John 15
3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

To consume all He is for us, The truths of all He said He was, our earthly sacrifice for our sins to God and the spirit and the seed of eternal Life Within us. He is the spiritual bread of life, He is the spiritual rock in the wilderness from which life giving water flowed forth, He provides and is everything we need for eternal life. He is the word of God. He is God.

John1
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Sorry for the lengthy reply,
But one last thought. A thought of using some plain old common sense.
When Jesus took the bread and broke it and said “take and eat. This is my body broken for you,’ were the disciples actually eating Jesus’s physical body then and there whilst He was standing - alive and whole before them? Because if the bread in His hands was His literal
Body, (or as some would have it, transformed into His body when they ate it) - ... He would have existed as a flat bread, a glass of wine, and a person all at the same time.
He would have died if He switched over to being the bread and wine upon it being consumed - or been severely wounded even if only bits of Him were consumed, and He,
Or parts of Him, would be travelling through the digestive systems of the disciples that very day (and possibly through His own Digestive system too as He was by law bidden to partake of the Passover as a Jew.) Of course I speak as a fool but to make a point.

Jesus Himself said explained that what is physically eaten does not make a difference to the spiritual state of a person.

Matt 15
16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

And Paul reiterates the sentiment though in a different context.
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

It puzzled the disciples too. I have always found it helpful to look at the verses following this difficult passage.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

right ... and read a little further:

John 6:

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.


When Jesus said Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, He clearly was not telling them they had to literally take a bite out of Him and drink His blood.

I was reminded of the verse in Jeremiah ... Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart ... (Jer 15:16).

Jeremiah didn't take a bite out of the scroll, chew it, and swallow it.

These concepts are analogies and I believe that just as physical bread and drink sustains our physical bodies, Jesus, as Bread of life and Living water, sustains our inner being ... the hidden man, the inward part which longs for God and brings us to seek Him out.

Those in John who went back, and walked no more with Him, squelched that inner hunger to know God because they were offended by His statements that He was the true bread from heaven. They were satisfied with the loaves and fishes with which He fed them as shown earlier in John 6. That's why they followed Him to Capernaum (John 6:24-26). But to go further into intimate relationship with Him ... they just weren't interested.