But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof ] Man’s privilege is attended, first, with a strict ritual prohibition. The words might be more literally rendered thus, “nevertheless flesh with its vital principle (or ‘soul’), which is its blood, ye shall not eat.” The Israelites regarded the blood as in a mysterious way the vehicle of the soul, or vital principle ( nephesh), of the flesh (Lev 17:11). The blood was always offered in sacrifice to God as the most sacred part of the victim, the symbol of its life. The prohibition to eat flesh, with the blood in it, formed one of the strictest rules of Israelite and Jewish life. As the institution of the Sabbath was associated with the age of the Creation, so the prohibition of blood-eating was associated with the age of Noah. In other words, its primitive character was shewn by its traditional origin, being regarded as antecedent even to the Call of Abraham. The infringement of the regulation betokens savage impiety (1Sa 14:32-34), or contamination with idolatrous abominations (Eze 33:25). In Act 15:29 to abstain from blood and from things strangled was absolutely necessary for the purpose of holding together the Jewish and Gentile members of the new Christian community 1 [13] . In our own time the Jews observe this regulation with strictness, and the Jewish butcher follows special rules in order that the meat may be entirely freed from blood (“Kosher Meat”).
[13] But is possibly here a gloss; and, if so, the gloss is a tribute to the usage. See Kirsopp Lake, The Earlier Epp. of St Paul.
The passages in the Law bearing upon this important regulation are Lev 17:10-14, Deu 12:16; Deu 12:23.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood] Though animal food was granted, yet the blood was most solemnly forbidden, because it was the life of the beast, and this life was to be offered to God as an atonement for sin. Hence the blood was ever held sacred, because it was the grand instrument of expiation, and because it was typical of that blood by which we enter into the holiest.
1. Before the deluge it was not eaten, because animal food was not in use.
2. After the deluge it was prohibited, as we find above; and, being one of the seven Noahic precepts, it was not eaten previously to the publication of the Mosaic law.
3. At the giving of the law, and at several times during the ministry of Moses, the prohibition was most solemnly, and with awful penalties renewed. Hence we may rest assured that no blood was eaten previously to the Christian era, nor indeed ever since by the Jewish people.
4. That the prohibition has been renewed under the Christian dispensation, can admit of little doubt by any man who dispassionately reads Ac 15:20; Ac 15:29; Ac 21:25, where even the Gentile converts are charged to abstain from it on the authority, not only of the apostles, but of the Holy Ghost, who gave them there and then especial direction concerning this point; see Ac 15:28; not for fear of stumbling the converted Jews, the gloss of theologians, but because it was one , of those necessary points, from the burden () of obedience to which they could not be excused.
5. This command is still scrupulously obeyed by the oriental Christians, and by the whole Greek Church; and why? because the reasons still subsist. No blood was eaten under the law, because it pointed out the blood that was to be shed for the sin of the world; and under the Gospel it should not be eaten, because it should ever be considered as representing the blood which has been shed for the remission of sins. If the eaters of blood in general knew that it affords a very crude, almost indigestible, and unwholesome ailment, they certainly would not on these physical reasons, leaving moral considerations out of the question, be so much attached to the consumption of that from which they could expect no wholesome nutriment, and which, to render it even pleasing to the palate, requires all the skill of the cook. See Le 17:10.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
With the life thereof, i.e. whilst it lives, or taken from the creature before it be quite dead; which was an ancient practice, and an effect either of luxury or cruelty.
Which is the blood thereof, i.e. which life or soul hath its seat in and its support from the blood, and the spirits contained in it. It is certain blood is the thing which is here principally minded and forbidden, and so the words may be thus translated and understood:
But flesh, i.e. the flesh of living creatures hereby allowed you,
with the life thereof, that is to say, with the blood thereof, wherein its life consists; or, flesh whilst it hath in it its life or soul, or, which is all one, its blood, shall you not eat. God thought fit to forbid this, partly that by this respect shown to the blood of beasts it might appear how sacred a thing the blood of man was, and how much God abhorred the sin of murder; and principally because the blood was reserved and consecrated to God, and was the means of atonement for man, (which reason God himself gives, Lev 17:11-12), and did in a special manner represent the blood of Christ, which was to be shed for the redemption of mankind.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. But flesh . . . the blood . . .shall ye not eatThe sole intention of this prohibition was toprevent these excesses of cannibal ferocity in eating flesh of livinganimals, to which men in the earlier ages of the world were liable.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall you not eat. This is the only exception to the eating of flesh; it was not to be eaten with the blood in it, which is said to be its life; not that the blood is of itself the life, but because it is a means of life, and that being exhausted, the creature must die, and because the animal and vital spirits appear to us most vigorous in it; yea, it is the ailment and support of them, and which furnishes out the greatest quantity of them: or rather it may be rendered, “the flesh with its life in its blood” m; while there is life in the blood, or while the creature is living; the meaning is, that a creature designed for food should be properly killed, and its blood let out; that it should not be devoured alive, as by a beast of prey; that raw flesh should not be eaten, as since by cannibals, and might be by riotous flesh eaters, before the flood; for notwithstanding this law, as flesh without the blood might be eaten, so blood properly let out, and dressed, or mixed with other things, might be eaten, for aught this says to the contrary; but was not to be eaten with the flesh, though it might separately, which was afterwards forbid by another law. The design of this was to restrain cruelty in men, and particularly to prevent the shedding of human blood, which men might be led into, were they suffered to tear living creatures in pieces, and feed upon their raw flesh, and the blood in it. The Targum of Jonathan is,
“but the flesh which is torn from a living beast at the time that its life is in it, or which is torn from a beast while it is slain, before all its breath is gone out, ye shall not eat.”
And the Jewish writers generally interpret this of the flesh of a creature taken from it alive, which, they say, is the seventh precept given to the sons of Noah, over and above the six which the sons of Adam were bound to observe, and they are these;
1. Idolatry is forbidden. 2. Blasphemy is forbidden. 3. The shedding of blood, or murder is forbidden. 4. Uncleanness, or unjust carnal copulations is forbidden. 5. Rapine or robbery is forbidden. 6. The administration of justice to malefactors is required. 7. The eating of any member or flesh of a creature while alive n is forbidden.
Such of the Heathens who conformed to those precepts were admitted to dwell among the Israelites, and were called proselytes of the gate.
m “carnem cum anima, “seu” vita ejus, sanguine ejus”, Cartwright. n Maimon. Hilchot Melachim, c. 9. sect. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof Some thus explain this passages ‘Ye may not eat a member cut off from a living animal,’ which is too trifling. However, since there is no copulative conjunction between the two words, blood and life, I do not doubt that Moses, speaking of the life, added the word blood exegetically, (288) as if he would say, that flesh is in some sense devoured with its life, when it is eaten imbued with its own blood. Wherefore, the life and the blood are not put for different things, but for the same; not because blood is in itself the life, but inasmuch as the vital spirits chiefly reside in the blood, it is, as far as our feeling is concerned, a token which represents life. And this is expressly declared, in order that men may have the greater horror of eating blood For if it be a savage and barbarous thing to devour lives, or to swallow down living flesh, men betray their brutality by eating blood. Moreover, the tendency of this prohibition is by no means obscure, namely, that God intends to accustom men to gentleness, by abstinence from the blood of animals; but, if they should become unrestrained, and daring in eating wild animals they would at length not be sparing of even human blood. Yet we must remember, that this restriction was part of the old law. (289) Wherefore, what Tertullian relates, that in his time it was unlawful among Christians to taste the blood of cattle, savours of superstition. For the apostles, in commanding the Gentiles to observe this rite, for a short time, did not intend to inject a scruple into their consciences, but only to prevent the liberty which was otherwise sacred, from proving an occasion of offense to the ignorant and the weak.
(288) This is apparent in the English version, where the words, “which is,” are added in Italics, showing that in the judgment of the translators, the word following was explanatory of that which preceded. — Ed.
(289) “ Partem fuisse veteris paedagogiae.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) But flesh. . . . The words are remarkable. Only flesh in its soul, its blood, ye shall not eat. The Authorised Version is probably right in taking blood as in apposition to soul, which word means here the principle of animation, or that which causes an animal to live. This is Gods especial gift; for He alone can bestow upon that aggregation of solids and fluids which we call a body the secret principle of life. Of this hidden life the blood is the representative, and while man is permitted to have the body for his food, as being the mere vessel which contains this life, the gift itself must go back to God, and the blood as its symbol be treated with reverence.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. Flesh with the life thereof Literally, Only flesh in its life, its blood, ye shall not eat a humane restriction, the necessity of which is seen in the barbarous and gluttonous cruelty of some heathen nations . The animal is not to be used for food until life has become wholly extinct . The restriction forbidding the eating or cooking of an animal while capable of suffering pain is in that benevolent spirit which pervades all the Bible, and has a care for the sparrow that falls . Another reason for this prohibition is, that blood is considered as typical of expiation and atonement . This is assigned in the Mosaic law, (Lev 17:10-11,) “for the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls . ” By this legislation the way was prepared for the reception of the great gospel doctrine that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, and that Christ is the propitiation for our sins .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
DISCOURSE: 18
CONFUSION OF TONGUES
Gen 9:4-8. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city, and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one anothers speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
THERE are many things observable in the world, of which neither reason nor history enables us to give any account. One would naturally suppose that Noah and his family speaking the same language, their children should speak the same; and that the same would be transmitted to their latest posterity. Small alterations might be expected to arise; but they would only be different dialects of the same language. But instead of this, there are hundreds of different languages in the world. Even in this island there are no less than three. Learned men have indeed endeavoured to trace various languages to one; but though by their efforts they have displayed their own ingenuity, they have never been able to establish their hypothesis. The true origin of this diversity of languages is revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures. In the passage before us we are informed respecting the time and manner and occasion of their first introduction. The descendants of Noah were building a city and tower in order to prevent that dispersion of their families, which God had ordained for the replenishing of the earth: and God, in righteous displeasure, confounded their languages, so that they could not understand each other: by this means they were necessitated to relinquish their project, and to fulfil the designs of his overruling Providence.
In our observations on the history of these builders we shall notice,
I.
Their intentions
It does not appear that they designed to fortify themselves against another deluge; for then they would have built on a mountain rather than a plain.They had principally two things in view:
1.
The advancement of their own honour
[They said, Go to, let us make ourselves a name. They thought that by raising this city they should immortalize themselves, and be famed for their wisdom and energy to the remotest generations. And here we see the principle which actuates all the world. What is it but the desire of fame which impels the warrior to the field of battle? What has greater influence on the philosopher, or more forcibly animates him in his researches after knowledge? What is it that actuates the rich in constructing and decorating their spacious edifices, but a desire to display their taste and opulence? Even the charitable are too often under the influence of this motive. To this, in many instances, must be ascribed the founding of colleges, or endowing of hospitals, or contributing to the support of established institutions. If, in any public charity, the publishing of the names of its supporters were to be discontinued, a difference would soon be found in the amount of the contributions. Would to God we could exempt the professors of religion also from this imputation! Where the heart is really right with God, it is on its guard against this base principle; but there are too many hypocrites, whose chief aim is to be accounted religious, and to be admired either for their talents or their virtues. There will at times be a mixture of principle in the best of men, which it is the labour of their lives to detect and rectify: and there is in all who are truly conscientious a commendable desire to approve themselves to their fellow-creatures in the discharge of their several duties. It is not in reference to either of these that we now speak. It is rather in reference to those in whom the love of fame has a predominant ascendancy: of them we say, as of the builders of Babel, that they are the objects of Gods just and heavy displeasure [Note: See this exemplified in Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:30-31.) Herod (Act 12:22-23.) and even the pious Hezekiah (2Ki 20:13-18.)].]
2.
The gratification of their own wishes
[God had ordered that the survivors of the deluge should increase and multiply, and replenish the earth [Note: Gen 9:1.]. Of course, if the whole earth was to be re-peopled, the rising generations must gradually enlarge their borders, with a view to occupy every quarter of the globe. But the builders of Babel thought that such a dispersion would deprive them of many comforts, and be attended with many inconveniences. As for the divine will, they were not much concerned about it: all they thought of was, their own ease and pleasure: and if obedience to God stood in competition with the gratification of their own wishes, they did not hesitate to sacrifice duty to inclination.
In this respect their example is very generally followed. God has prescribed a line of conduct to us which is difficult and self-denying. He requires us to sit loose to the vanities of this world, and to seek our rest and happiness above. This but ill suits our earthly and sensual dispositions. Hence we choose not to submit to such restraints: we think we are at liberty to please ourselves: we pronounce the commands of God to be unnecessarily strict and severe: we content ourselves with such a conformity to them as will consist with the indulgence of our own desires: and we prosecute our plans without any reference to His will, or any subjection to His control.
Look at the young, the gay, the worldly, the ambitious; and say whether they be not all treading in the steps of these infatuated builders? Say whether they do not systematically shun a life of self-denial, and follow their own inclinations rather than the commands of God?
How offensive such a life is to God we may collect from those declarations of the apostle, That to be carnally-minded is death, and that they who are in the flesh cannot please God [Note: Rom 8:6; Rom 8:8.].]
Since their purpose was directly opposite to Gods decree, we shall not wonder at,
II.
Their disappointment
God in this place, as also in several other places, speaks in the plural number; Let US go down [Note: Gen 1:26; Gen 3:22.]. By this form of expression he gave, it should seem, an early intimation of the mysterious doctrine of the Trinity, which was afterwards to be more clearly revealed. Moreover, speaking after the manner of men, he represents himself as coming down from heaven to inspect their work, and as feeling an apprehension, that, if he did not interrupt its progress, his own plans respecting the dispersion of mankind would be defeated. He then declares his determination to frustrate their design, and to accomplish his own purposes, by confounding their language.
Now in this their disappointment it will be profitable to notice.
1.
The time
[God interrupted them in the midst of all their hopes and projects. They had made considerable progress in their work, and were, doubtless, anticipating the satisfaction they would feel in its completion. And thus it is that the expectations of those who are seeking their happiness in this world are generally disappointed. They form their plans; they prosecute their designs; they advance in their prospects; partial success animates them to a more diligent pursuit of their favourite object: but sooner or later God stops them in their career, and says to them, Thou fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee. When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as a thief in the night, or as travail upon a woman with child.]
2.
The manner
[The means which God used to stop the progress of the work was the most unlooked for that can be imagined. The people engaged in it might conceive it possible that they should be stopped by quarrels amongst themselves, or by another deluge, or by fire from heaven; but they could never entertain the remotest idea of such an interruption as they experienced. And thus does God generally interpose to disappoint the expectations of worldly men. He has ten thousand ways in which to render their plans abortive, or to embitter to them the very things in which they have sought their happiness. We have laboured for honour and distinction: he suffers us perhaps to attain our wishes; and then makes our elevation a source of nothing but disquietude and pain. Many have looked for enjoyment in the acquisition of a partner or a family; who after a time would give the world perhaps to loose the indissoluble knot, or to have been written childless in the earth. In short, the Governor of the Universe is never at a loss for means to confound the devices of the wise, or frustrate the counsels of the ungodly.
Moreover, as the disappointment of the builders was strange and unlooked for, so was it in a way that perpetuated their disgrace. The building which they had raised would, for many centuries perhaps, be a witness against them: every time also that they opened their lips, they would be reminded of their folly and wickedness by the very language which they spoke: and as long as the world shall stand, the different nations of the earth will exhibit the sad effects of their impiety, the indelible records of their shame.
And where can we turn our eyes without seeing memorials of human folly, and evidences, that all creature-confidences are vain? Ask the aged, and they will testify; inquire even of the young, and they will confess; that the creature, however fair its appearance or promising its aspect, is only a broken cistern which can hold no water. All of them, both rich and poor, have gone to it with their vessels, and come away ashamed [Note: Jer 14:3.]. They renew indeed their applications from time to time; but only to experience repeated disappointments. There are but few who have not found their cup, notwithstanding its occasional sweets, so distasteful on the whole, that they are almost weary of the world by the time that they have half completed their destined course. And the more eager they have been in their pursuit of earthly good, the more painfully have they been made to feel, that it was all vanity and vexation of spirit.
If we look into the eternal world, what monuments shall we there find of disappointed ambition! What multitudes are there, who once said, I aspire after happiness; I shall find it in the attainment of wealth, and in the gratifications of sense! They passed their time in dreaming of happiness which they never realized; and knew not that they had been dreaming, till they awoke to shame and everlasting contempt. And though, while in this world they justified their choice, they themselves will to all eternity be witnesses for God, acknowledging the folly of their former conduct, and the justice of their present doom.]
We cannot conclude without OBSERVING,
1.
How awfully do we at this moment suffer under the curse inflicted on them!
[Difference of language has not only placed obstacles in the way of commercial intercourse, but has given occasion to contiguous or distant nations to consider each other as enemies. Moreover, it has been the means of excluding the greater part of the world from all the advantages of revelation. And if a benevolent person, desirous of diffusing the knowledge of Christ among the heathen, engage in the arduous undertaking, he must first lose several years before he can attain a competent knowledge of the languages in which he is to address them: even then he labours under the greatest disadvantages in speaking to them; and, after all, he must limit his exertions to two or three nations at the uttermost. Multitudes there are who would gladly encounter labour and fatigue in the service of their fellow-creatures; but they are discouraged by these difficulties, and are compelled to restrain their benevolent wishes through a conscious incapacity to carry them into effect. Nor is this all: for the unlearned of our own nation sustain incalculable loss through the introduction of foreign words, and foreign idioms, into our own language; insomuch that, if they hear a discourse that has been penned for the edification of the learned, the preacher is, in fact, a barbarian to them, almost as much as if he spoke in another language.
Suffering thus as we do for the transgression of those builders, we ought at least to shun a repetition of their sins, and to humble ourselves before God for all the pride and worldliness of our hearts.]
2.
How graciously has God blended mercy with judgment!
[When the plan of salvation was perfected, and the time for the more extensive propagation of the Gospel was arrived, God inspired holy men, without any previous instruction, to speak all manner of languages, and to diffuse the knowledge of the truth through all nations; that as by the division of tongues he had dispersed men through the earth, so by the gift of tongues he might gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad [Note: Act 2:3-6 with Joh 11:52.]. The end of that gift having been in a measure attained, and the gift itself withdrawn, he stirred up men of learning and piety in different countries to translate the Scriptures into their respective languages, so that the unlearned might read them in the language which they understood. What do we of this nation owe to God, and, under God, to our Reformers, for giving us the Bible in our own tongue! If the volume of inspiration were locked up in the languages in which it was first written, how deplorable would be our state! Oh, never, never can we be sufficiently thankful that the fountains of divine knowledge are open and accessible to all!
Moreover, though the languages of men are still different, there is a language in which all the children of God throughout the earth agree,the language of the heart. As far as respects the work of God upon their souls, they all speak precisely the same thing. Sighs and groans and tears are universally the expressions of their sorrow on account of sin. They all agree in exalting Christ as their wisdom, their righteousness, their sanctification, and their complete redemption. They glory in Him, and in him alone. They are indeed Barbarians to the ignorant ungodly world, who are ready to say of them as the Jews did of the Apostles, These men are full of new wine, they are foolish, they are mad. But they understand each other: though brought from the most distant parts of the earth, there will be found such an agreement between them, as will unite their hearts to each other in the closest bonds of love. What was said of them before their dispersion, may be said of them now again, They are all one, and they have all one language. Though Egyptians by nature, they have learned the language of Canaan [Note: Isa 19:18.], and are again united in building an edifice that shall last for ever.
Let us then bless our God for these rich mercies; and from being strangers and foreigners, let us seek to become fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
There is somewhat very striking in this precept; and which is more than once, again repeated, under the law, with the reason of its appointment; see Lev 17:10-11 . No doubt, the grand object aimed at, all along, is in reference to the blood of atonement, by the Lord Jesus. And it is a matter of infinite moment, worthy the Reader’s closest regard, how particular the Holy Ghost hath been, in every age of the church, from the fall of man to the death of Christ, to keep alive this leading doctrine in the minds of the people.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Ver. 4. But flesh with the life thereof, the blood. ] Blood was forbidden: First, as not so wholesome food: Secondly, lest by being fleshed in blood, they should become bloody-minded: Thirdly, blood, the organ of life, is holy to God the author of life (who was also to be pacified by the blood of his Son), and therefore they should not pollute or profane it, by devouring thereof.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
life = soul. Hebrew. nephesh. See App-13.
blood. This is the essence and foundation of the doctrine of substitution and atonement = “life for life”, “The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23) and “without shedding of blood [and thus giving up the life] is no remission” (Heb 9:22).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
the life: Lev 3:17, Lev 7:26, Lev 17:10-14, Lev 19:26, Deu 12:16, Deu 12:23, Deu 14:21, Deu 15:23, 1Sa 14:34, Act 15:20, Act 15:25, Act 15:29, 1Ti 4:4
Reciprocal: Gen 1:26 – have dominion Exo 26:33 – within the veil Lev 17:14 – General Jos 22:23 – let the Lord 1Sa 14:32 – did eat 2Sa 23:17 – the blood Eze 33:25 – Ye eat
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gen 9:4. But flesh with the blood thereof shall ye not eat One meaning of this may be, Ye shall not cut off, tear away, or take any member or part of any creature for your food, while it is yet alive; but ye shall first spill its blood, and thereby put it to death in the way most easy to it. This is the sense which the Jews give the words, and, thus understood, they contain a prohibition of all cruelty toward those animals which are killed for food. And the prohibition, in this point of view, was not unnecessary, the practice here condemned being not unusual in ancient nor even in modern times, in many parts of the East. The principal meaning, however, of the passage, is to prohibit the eating of blood in any way, the eating of which seems to have been forbidden especially for two reasons: 1st, To be a token to mankind in all ages, that they would have had no right to take the life of any animal for food, if God had not given them that right, and who, therefore, to remind them of it, and impress it on their minds in all generations, denied them the use of blood, and required it to be spilled upon the ground: 2d: In honour of the blood of atonement, Lev 17:11-12. The life of the sacrifice was accepted for the life of the sinner, and blood made atonement for the soul, and therefore must not be looked upon as a common thing, but must be poured out before the Lord, 2Sa 23:16. And it ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts 15.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
9:4 {d} But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
(d) That is, living creatures, and the flesh of beasts that are strangled: and by this all cruelty is forbidden.