John Calvin Commentary Deuteronomy 12:15

"Notwithstanding, thou mayest kill and eat flesh within all thy gates, after all the desire of thy soul, according to the blessing of Jehovah thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart." — Deuteronomy 12:15 (ASV)

Nevertheless you may kill. What precedes I have introduced in its proper place, namely, that they should not kill the sacrifices anywhere but in the sanctuary, of which there was only one in Judea. Here the permission to eat meat is given, provided that they do not offer the animals to God, but eat them as they would wild animals. By way of example, two kinds are mentioned, the roebuck and the hart, of which no offering was made. They are, therefore, freely allowed to eat meat wherever they pleased, with this exception: that they should not taste the blood. For, although this was observed by their forefathers before the giving of the Law, God ratifies it anew when He would gather a unique people to Himself.

We know that immediately after the flood, Noah and his descendants were commanded to abstain from blood. But, since the greater part of mankind soon degenerated, it is probable that all nations neglected God’s command and allowed themselves universal license on this point. It is even questionable whether this observance, which had everywhere fallen into disuse, prevailed among the family of Shem. Certainly, it may be conjectured from the renewed promulgation of the law that it was altogether obsolete. At any rate, God wanted His chosen people to be distinguished by this mark of separation from heathen nations.

The reason for the prohibition now mentioned had already been declared,¹⁸ namely, because the blood is the seat of life. But although it was allowable to kill an animal for food, yet it was a useful restraint to prevent inhumanity, that they should not touch the blood. For if they abstained from the blood of animals, it was much more necessary to spare human blood. After God, therefore, has forbidden blood to be eaten, He immediately proceeds to speak of men themselves: Whose sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.¹⁹ (Genesis 9:4–6).

Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to connect all the passages in which God commands the people to abstain from blood to the Sixth Commandment. In itself, indeed, eating blood was a matter of no great importance; since, therefore, God so often emphasizes a point of so little weight, it may be inferred that the law has some further object.

To this may be added the severity of the punishment, for surely it was not a crime worthy of death to taste the blood of some small bird. Therefore, it is also clear that the prohibition had another meaning, namely, that cruelty might be abhorred.

And the words of Moses show that eating blood is not forbidden because it infected a person with its uncleanness, but rather so that they might consider human life precious. For it is said, the blood is the life. In the opinion of Augustine,²⁰ this is equivalent to it being “the sign of life;” however, Moses rather means that animal life is contained in the blood.

Therefore, blood, which represents life, was not prohibited without reason. Nor was it only sinful to eat blood by itself, but also together with the flesh, as is expressly declared both in Deuteronomy and in the last passage from Leviticus.

¹⁸ See on Leviticus 3:17, , vol. 2, p. 335, whence, however, he refers to , whence, however, he refers to Genesis 9:4. C. Society’s edition, . C. Society’s edition, vol. 1, p. 293..

¹⁹ Lat. “Qui effuderit sanguinem hominis in homine;” he who shall have shed the blood of man in man. — . “Qui effuderit sanguinem hominis in homine;” he who shall have shed the blood of man in man. — Vide C. . in loco..

²⁰ Quaest. in Leviticum, 57 Section 2. “Illud appellatur anima, quod significat animam.” — animam.” — Edit. . Benedict. . tom. 3, p. 1 pag. 516.. 3, p. 1 pag. 516.