Blood and the God of life

Everything the Old Testament says about blood follows on from the one fundamental principle;
“The life of the flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus ch17 v11).

At the same time we are taught, from the Creation story onwards, that life itself comes from the Lord.
We don’t know the exact meaning of YHWH, because we’ve lost all knowledge of what the vowels were, but the odds are that it meant “The one who lives” or “The one who gives life”, or both.

If the Lord is Life and the source of Life, and if the life in living things is to be found in their blood, this leads to the conclusion that the blood itself ultimately belongs to the Lord.

That conclusion has practical implications.

Some of them are spelled out in the commands given to Noah (Genesis ch9 vv1-7).
When men kill animals for food, they are, in principle, taking what belongs to God.
He permits it, though, on the condition that they don’t touch the blood itself.
Human life is a different matter, because human life was made “in the image of God”.
I would take this to mean that human life is self-aware, in a sense that doesn’t apply to other living things; intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing.
That would make us the “image” of a God who is self-aware, intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing.
So human life comes under his protection. Anyone who takes that life, without his permission, will have to give a life back.
“Of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”.
And if blood is shed in the land, then the land itself is “defiled” (Numbers ch35 v33).

That is why the man who pursues a murderer is called “the avenger of blood” (as in Numbers ch35 v19).
As long as the death is unavenged, the blood itself is understood to be demanding vengeance, on the victim’s behalf;
“The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground” (Genesis ch4 v10).
Incidentally, this is exactly what is happening at the opening of the “fifth seal” in Revelation ch6. It is the blood of the martyrs which is calling for vindication against those who have killed them.

If a man has killed unjustly, then the blood of his victim metaphorically “lies upon him”, where it presumably calls down God’s wrath;
“The Lord will bring back his bloody deeds upon his own head, because…he attacked and slew with the sword two men more righteous than himself. So shall their blood come back upon the head of Joab” (1 Kings ch2 vv32-33).
Jesus is using the same image when he tells the scribes and Pharisees “I send you [people you will persecute]…that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to Zechariah the son of Barachiah” (Matthew ch23 vv34-36).
But if the dead man has caused his death by his own fault, his blood “lies upon” himself instead, and there will be no “blood-guilt” and no vengeance.
As in the case of the night-burglar (Exodus ch22 v2), or the man who ignores the conditions of the protection promised to Rahab’s household;
“If any one goes out of the doors of your house into the street, his blood shall be on his head and we will be guiltless.
But if a hand is laid upon any one who is with you in the house, his blood shall be on our head” (Joshua ch2 v19).

The blood of animals belongs to the Lord as well, for the same reason.
It’s the symbol of the life which he gives.

One of the implications is that their blood can be used to mark out and identify anything else that belongs to the Lord.
The classic example is the original Passover, when the people of Israel were told to smear the blood of the sacrificed lamb on the lintels and posts of their doors.
This mark was to identify them as the Lord’s people.
“And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you and destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt” (Exodus ch12 v13)

Blood was used again at the consecration of the tabernacle and its priests.
The consecration of the altar was carried out by means of the bull of the sin offering.
“And Moses killed it and took the blood, and with his finger put it on the horns of the altar round about, and purified the altar, and consecrated it” (Leviticus ch8
Moving on to the priests themselves, he took the ram of ordination.
“And Moses killed it, and took some of its blood and put it on the tip of Aaron’s right ear and on the thumb of his right hand and on the great toe of his right foot”, and he did the same for the sons of Aaron (vv22-24).
Finally he “took some of the anointing oil and of the blood which was on the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron and his garments…so he consecrated Aaron and his garments, and his sons and his sons’ garments with him” (v30).
At least part of the symbolism of this action must have been “This blood belongs to the Lord, the source of life, so it shows how these things and these people have been set aside for the service of the Lord. They have been marked out as his property.”

As already mentioned, the Lord allowed his people to eat animal flesh, on condition that they respected his ownership of the blood.
At the very least, they should pour it out on the earth, which was one way of returning it to him (Deuteronomy ch12 v16).
In fact anyone who failed to offer it back to the Lord incurred “bloodguilt”; that is, it is an offence comparable to the shedding of human blood;
“If any man of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, and does not bring it to the door of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the Lord [so that the priest can sprinkle the blood on the altar and burn the fat]…bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people.” (Leviticus ch17 vv3-4)
It’s all part of recognising the Lord as the source of life.

That command must have applied in the early days, before sacrifice got complicated.
But even when it ceased to be the routine to sacrifice every animal that was eaten, the offering of blood was the central point of most of the acts of sacrifice.
In particular, of course, the sacrifice of atonement, for the blood was supposed to be reserved for that purpose.
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your sins” (Leviticus ch17 v11).
I looked at atonement in more detail on other occasions.
I came to the conclusion that the real value of the offering of blood lies in the symbolism.
It is the offering of life, offered back to the God who gives life in the first place.
When the people of Israel offer the blood of animals, it’s a token of the offering of their own lives.
But it’s only a token, which is why it can never be a complete fulfilment of what their God requires. As he keeps telling them.

The Gentile church did not take up the ritual customs of the Jewish religion.
This means, amongst other things, that they did not follow Jewish practice in the treatment of blood.
But the continuing performance of the rituals was less necessary once they had fulfilled their teaching function.
They had been serving as a visual aid, helping to convey God’s message about himself, that he is the source and therefore the owner of Life.
We don’t need to follow the rituals themselves, when we can absorb the same lesson from knowing how these rituals were used in the past.

And people wonder why i call this entity "bloodthirsty"

Good write up though...S&F

a reply to: Akragon
At least he owns it, so he's not stealing his own property.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Perhaps, though most times he/she/it seems to get others to steal it away from said person who it is on lone to

So to speak

originally posted by:DISRAELI

Everything the Old Testament says about blood follows on from the one fundamental principle;
“The life of the flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus ch17 v11).
We don’t know the exact meaning of YHWH, because we’ve lost all knowledge of what the vowels were, but the odds are that it meant “The one who lives” or “The one who gives life”, or both.

It should mean "he who loves bloodshed'' because he is constantly asking for animals to be killed and ordering ethnic cleansing.

If the Lord is Life and the source of Life, and if the life in living things is to be found in their blood, this leads to the conclusion that the blood itself ultimately belongs to the Lord.

That conclusion has practical implications.

Some of them are spelled out in the commands given to Noah (Genesis ch9 vv1-7).
When men kill animals for food, they are, in principle, taking what belongs to God.
He permits it, though, on the condition that they don’t touch the blood itself.
Human life is a different matter, because human life was made “in the image of God”.
That would make us the “image” of a God who is self-aware, intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing.
So human life comes under his protection.

Or curse. The jury is out. TOO much bloodshed.

Anyone who takes that life,

Except Yahweh, of course.

without his permission, will have to give a life back.

Unless he gives "permission", naturally. God is like a warlord right?

“Of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”.
And if blood is shed in the land, then the land itself is “defiled” (Numbers ch35 v33).

This Yahweh is thirsty for the red stuff. He doesn't need it, he just likes it.

That is why the man who pursues a murderer is called “the avenger of blood” (as in Numbers ch35 v19).
As long as the death is unavenged, the blood itself is understood to be demanding vengeance, on the victim’s behalf;

Except Israelites who murder, they were told to set up communities for the accused to flee from vengeance.

“The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground” (Genesis ch4 v10).
Incidentally, this is exactly what is happening at the opening of the “fifth seal” in Revelation ch6. It is the blood of the martyrs which is calling for vindication against those who have killed them.

If a man has killed unjustly, then the blood of his victim metaphorically “lies upon him”, where it presumably calls down God’s wrath;
“The Lord will bring back his bloody deeds upon his own head, because…he attacked and slew with the sword two men more righteous than himself. So shall their blood come back upon the head of Joab” (1 Kings ch2 vv32-33).
Jesus is using the same image when he tells the scribes and Pharisees “I send you [people you will persecute]…that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to Zechariah the son of Barachiah”
As in the case of the night-burglar (Exodus ch22 v2), or the man who ignores the conditions of the protection promised to Rahab’s household;
“If any one goes out of the doors of your house into the street, his blood shall be on his head and we will be guiltless.
But if a hand is laid upon any one who is with you in the house, his blood shall be on our head” (Joshua ch2 v19).

The blood of animals belongs to the Lord as well, for the same reason.
It’s the symbol of the life which he gives.

One of the implications is that their blood can be used to mark out and identify anything else that belongs to the Lord.
The classic example is the original Passover, when the people of Israel were told to smear the blood of the sacrificed lamb on the lintels and posts of their doors.
This mark was to identify them as the Lord’s people.
“And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you and destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt” (Exodus ch12 v13)

When Yahweh is not killing his "chosen people" he is smiting nations. Guys crazy.

The consecration of the altar was carried out by means of the bull of the sin offering.
“And Moses killed it and took the blood, and with his finger put it on the horns of the altar round about, and purified the altar, and consecrated it” (Leviticus ch8
Moving on to the priests themselves, he took the ram of ordination.
“And Moses killed it, and took some of its blood and put it on the tip of Aaron’s right ear and on the thumb of his right hand and on the great toe of his right foot”, and he did the same for the sons of Aaron (vv22-24).
Finally he “took some of the anointing oil and of the blood which was on the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron and his garments…so he consecrated Aaron and his garments, and his sons and his sons’ garments with him” (v30).
At least part of the symbolism of this action must have been “This blood belongs to the Lord, the source of life, so it shows how these things and these people have been set aside for the service of the Lord. They have been marked out as his property.”

As already mentioned, the Lord allowed his people to eat animal flesh, on condition that they respected his ownership of the blood.
At the very least, they should pour it out on the earth, which was one way of returning it to him (Deuteronomy ch12 v16).
In fact anyone who failed to offer it back to the Lord incurred “bloodguilt”; that is, it is an offence comparable to the shedding of human blood;
“If any man of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, and does not bring it to the door of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the Lord [so that the priest can sprinkle the blood on the altar and burn the fat]…bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people.” (Leviticus ch17 vv3-4)
It’s all part of recognising the Lord as the source of life.

That command must have applied in the early days, before sacrifice got complicated.
But even when it ceased to be the routine to sacrifice every animal that was eaten, the offering of blood was the central point of most of the acts of sacrifice.
In particular, of course, the sacrifice of atonement, for the blood was supposed to be reserved for that purpose.
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your sins” (Leviticus ch17 v11).
I looked at atonement in more detail on other occasions.
I came to the conclusion that the real value of the offering of blood lies in the symbolism.
It is the offering of life, offered back to the God who gives life in the first place.
When the people of Israel offer the blood of animals, it’s a token of the offering of their own lives.
But it’s only a token, which is why it can never be a complete fulfilment of what their God requires. As he keeps telling them.

The Gentile church did not take up the ritual customs of the Jewish religion.
This means, amongst other things, that they did not follow Jewish practice in the treatment of blood.
But the continuing performance of the rituals was less necessary once they had fulfilled their teaching function.

This sounds like a blood sacrifice cult.

If I understand correctly eating of flesh was forbidden before the deluge.

I wonder why not only does God allow the eating of certain cooked meats but he turns around and says that they must also kill certain animals not for food but so he can be pleased by the aroma of the burnt offering.

No killing animals is replaced with kill LOTS of animals everyday for ME. WTF?

Ezekiel 20:25 Yahweh confesses

I even gave them laws that were not good and observances by which they could never live; and I polluted them with their own offerings, making them sacrifice all their first born; which was to punish them, so they would learn I am Yahweh.

Punishment so they "know I am Yahweh" is pretty shatty, but making them kill their first born children is not a Godly act. At all

My other more modern Bible says "offer up" and "horrify" them instead of punish.

But one way or another infant sacrifice is being demanded by Yahweh.

Worship that! Never!!

reply to: DISRAELI

At the same time we are taught, from the Creation story onwards, that life itself comes from the Lord. We don’t know the exact meaning of YHWH, because we’ve lost all knowledge of what the vowels were, but the odds are that it meant “The one who lives” or “The one who gives life”, or both.

That's actually not an accurate assumption:

a reply to: NOTurTypical
The suggestion is not unique to me.
The root meaning of the verb may be more "being" or "becoming", but in the case of a God "being" and "living" are synonymous.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: NOTurTypical
The suggestion is not unique to me.
The root meaning of the verb may be more "being" or "becoming", but in the case of a God "being" and "living" are synonymous.

But Hebrew is a pictograph language, each letter carries a visual representation. Which is kinda cool, a person can memorize the visual meaning of each letter and read about 90% of Hebrew. So we cannot ignore the visual meanings of the letters, they go hand in hand.

a reply to: Shahada

Lol, no. God is talking about the first born of the oxen and sheep!! Those were reserved for sacrifice in the OT. They were weaned on the 8th day from mothers milk.

a reply to: NOTurTypical
Since the derivation from the verb is at least possible, I do rather like it as representing the most fundamental aspect of his nature. Revelation takes the same meaning and expands it to "was and IS and is to come", contrasting with the "Is not" of the Beast. It gives the sense that God is "absolute", which is very important Biblically.
Perhaps we can accept the name as having a double meaning.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I'm not here to judge your interpretation, I just love the pictorial message of the letters because it's the gospel. No worries. Perhaps there is a multiplicity of meaning in His Name.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Shahada

Lol, no. God is talking about the first born of the oxen and sheep!! Those were reserved for sacrifice in the OT. They were weaned on the 8th day from mothers milk.

Uhhh, no...lol at you for thinking that without even trying to research it.

It's even confirmed by the footnotes in my Bible and not something Christianity even denies, just you.

You should worry less about what should be true and focus more on what actually is true. It might not be as pleasant but at least it's honest. And accurate.

You can only be assuming that, but it just an incorrect assumption and not valid in terms of truth.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

"All THEIR (the peoples) first born." Means what it says and is in no way referring to first fruits or first born animals or you would see it in the words.

He is absolutely talking about their children and doesn't deny it.

He is even gloating about how he "horrified them" as a punishment.

Animal sacrifice is not something that is "horrifying" to anyone using common sense. He even makes it known that he deliberately set laws they couldn't follow.

Where you come up with your crazy excuses I do not know. So young, so naive.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I definitely get why you WANT that to be true but it's not. The people's first born and first born of a flock are two different things and seperate issues.

In the instance I provided there exists no reason for assuming something that is clearly not what is being communicated (it is so obviously not animals).

So you mentioning the 8th day and weening animals is puzzling. Are you just learning this about your "god"?

I would probably try and word my way around it too at first. Then I would come to my senses and stop rationalizing. Show me the word animals, it isn't there. Show me how an animal becomes a person's first born, doesn't.

You are addicted to assumptions and misinterpretations I have noticed.

a reply to: Shahada

Then tell me why nobody sacrificed their firstborn children on the brazen altar of the tabernacle or temple, but they sacrificed their firstborn animals?

God says right in the text that the firstborn of the ox and sheep are his, and says a sheep can be replaced for a donkey, that donkeys weren't sacrificed.

God demanded their firstborn as His own, their firstborn of their cattle and flocks.

You will not curse God, and a prince of your people, you will not smear. For your goods and your wine-pressings do not be late, your eldest son offer to me. Thus you will do for your oxen and your sheep: seven days it will be with its mother, on the eighth day, give to me. And a holy people thou shalt be to me, and predated carcasses in the field you will not eat, you shalt throw it to the dogs.—Exodus 22:27

All that breaks opens a womb, and all your livestock remember, first birth a bull and a sheep. And first birth of donkeys you will redeem with a sheep, and if you will not redeem it, break its neck. All your firstborn sons, redeem, and they will not see my face devoid of these.—Exodus 34:19-20

Firstborn of the animals were portioned to the Lord, not children. That's idiotic.

From the first church synod, held in Jerusalem with the apostles in attendence: Acts 15:27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to tell you in person the same things we are writing you. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond these essential requirements: 29You must 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. Farewell.

Christians should not eat blood or strangled animals. Not only Christians but any person as this law was given to Noah and his descendents.

But you are right about it being a token, you can't get all the blood out of an animal when you slaughter it.

Blood transfusions.
Blood is the symbol of life, to not take blood to save your life would be putting the symbol above the real thing. It is the life that makes blood holy.

Matthew 23:16 Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes it sacred? 18And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath."