John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 17:10

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people." — Leviticus 17:10 (ASV)

And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel. God here not only condemns to death whoever has polluted themselves by eating blood, but declares that He Himself will take vengeance on them, even if they escape from the hands of the judges. For He not only prescribes to the judges what is right for them to do, but also asserts for Himself the office of inflicting the punishment.

If we consider the intention of the Law, is this surprising? For although it is not consistent that the blood of an animal should be compensated for by the death of a man, still we must remember that this mode of instruction²² was necessary for an unrefined people, to prevent them from quickly lapsing into barbarism.

But, so they would not complain that no use for the blood remained, He reminds them that since it was given for atonement, they would be very ungrateful if they were not content with so great a blessing. Surely, since it was the price they were to pay for appeasing God, this was a use of it far preferable to food. If, then, they desired to exchange into ordinary food the blood, which was destined to the altar for the reconciliation of God, Moses indirectly reproves their ingratitude. For when God took away the right of eating it, He left them something better, which should have fully satisfied them.

We have elsewhere²³ seen how blood atones for souls—that is, in a sacramental manner. Here, it must be observed that what properly belongs to Christ is thus transferred by metonymy to figures and symbols, yet in such a way that the likeness should be neither empty nor ineffective. For insofar as the fathers perceived Christ in the external sacrifices, atonement was truly exhibited in them.

In this passage, I do not understand “the strangers” to be all visitors who might have journeyed among them for business reasons, but those who had devoted themselves to the worship of God. For many foreigners, abandoning their superstitions, were circumcised, and it was necessary that these individuals should be explicitly bound by the Law; otherwise, if it had not applied to them, they might have withdrawn from obeying it. This point must, therefore, be briefly addressed, so that we do not suppose that heathen sojourners were prohibited from eating blood, whereas they were allowed to buy for food²⁴ even flesh torn by beasts.

Since, however, the Patriarchs before the Law had abstained from blood, and its prohibition had no reference to the First Table or the legal service, it followed that when the Apostles abrogated the ceremonial law, they did not dare to immediately allow the free eating of blood. This was to prevent great scandal from arising from this new and unusual practice (Acts 15:20).

Therefore, to prevent such a trivial matter from causing deadly schisms in the Churches, they commanded the Gentiles not to eat blood, adding as the reason that those accustomed to reading the writings of Moses would be disturbed by this innovation. Yet this was only observed for a short period, as we gather from Paul.²⁵ It was, not without superstition and misplaced zeal, retained by some even to the days of Tertullian.

²² “Hanc paedagogiam.” — .” — Lat. “Ceste doctrine puerile.” — . “Ceste doctrine puerile.” — Fr..

²³ See on Exodus 12:21, , ante vol. 1 p. 221..

²⁴ See on Deuteronomy 14:21, , ante vol. 2, p. 69..

²⁵ There is no reference here in the Latin, but the Fr. is, “comme il se peut recueillir par ce que Sainct Paul en escrit aux Corinthiens;” as may be gathered from what St. Paul writes respecting it to the Corinthians. In . is, “comme il se peut recueillir par ce que Sainct Paul en escrit aux Corinthiens;” as may be gathered from what St. Paul writes respecting it to the Corinthians. In C.’.’s Commentary on the Acts, 15:28, he says, “We know that this law was foredone by Paul, so soon as the tumult and contention was once ended, when he teacheth that nothing is unclean, (Commentary on the Acts, 15:28, he says, “We know that this law was foredone by Paul, so soon as the tumult and contention was once ended, when he teacheth that nothing is unclean, (Romans 14:14,)and when he granteth liberty to eat all manner of meats, yea, even such as were sacrificed to idols. (,)and when he granteth liberty to eat all manner of meats, yea, even such as were sacrificed to idols. (1 Corinthians 10:25.)” — .)” — C. . Society’’s edit., ., vol. 2, p. 79. Tertullian, . Tertullian, Apol., ., cap. 9, speaks as follows; “Erubescat error vester Christianis, qui ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis esculentas habemus, qui propterea quoque suffocatis et morticinis abstinemus, ne quo modo sanguine contaminemur, vel intra viscera sepulto.” See Bingham, book 17 ch. 5 sec. 20 “But on the other hand, because it was the custom of the Catholic Church, almost to the time of St. Austin, to abstain from eating of blood, in compliance with the rule given by the Apostles to the Gentile converts; therefore, by the most ancient laws of the Church, all clergymen were obliged to abstain from it under pain of degradation. This is evident from the Apostolical Canons, and those of Gangra, and the second Council of Orleans, and the Council of Trullo. But as this was looked upon by some only as a temporary injunction, so it appears from St. Austin that it was of no force in the African Church. (Contra Faust., lib. 32, c. 13.) He that would see more about it may consult Curcellaeus, who has written a large dissertation upon the subject.”. 9, speaks as follows; “Erubescat error vester Christianis, qui ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis esculentas habemus, qui propterea quoque suffocatis et morticinis abstinemus, ne quo modo sanguine contaminemur, vel intra viscera sepulto.” See Bingham, book 17 ch. 5 sec. 20 “But on the other hand, because it was the custom of the Catholic Church, almost to the time of St. Austin, to abstain from eating of blood, in compliance with the rule given by the Apostles to the Gentile converts; therefore, by the most ancient laws of the Church, all clergymen were obliged to abstain from it under pain of degradation. This is evident from the Apostolical Canons, and those of Gangra, and the second Council of Orleans, and the Council of Trullo. But as this was looked upon by some only as a temporary injunction, so it appears from St. Austin that it was of no force in the African Church. (Contra Faust., lib. 32, c. 13.) He that would see more about it may consult Curcellaeus, who has written a large dissertation upon the subject.”