Related history comes up in regard to the blood issue as well. The east and
west areas of believers became divided.
Both views knew the verses about blood resulted from discussions with the Jew-
ish leaders in Jerusalem when Christianity was still considered a branch of
Judaism debated in temples yet Gentiles were now becoming Christians. Both
views figured "things strangled" were animals that hadn't been normally slaugh-
tered and would contain a higher degree of blood (likely found in some nearby
One view saw the rule on blood as being a basic food (if not transfusion) ban.
The other view figured the rule was about Christians being told not to do cer-
tain things the Jewish leaders worried that many Gentile Christians did, things
which would cause the Jewish leaders not to permit them in temples. One such
thing the Jewish leaders wanted the Gentile Christians to be told was to not eat
meat with a higher blood content than found in the meat the Jewish people ate.
The Jewish people koshered blood from meat and wouldn't want those who ate meat
that had the higher blood content, which is the way it was generally found oth-
erwise (most in Corinth came from idol temples, for example), people seen as un-
clean to them, around them debating about belief in Jesus. The Jewish leaders
also worried about Gentile Christians eating meat from idol temples since Chris-
tians had a rule against idolatry but not things offered to idols as a general
ban whereas the Jews considered someone who ate idol temple meats to be unclean.
The Jewish leaders also worried that Gentiles were more liable to break the
rule not to fornicate (probably a problem in any phase of history....).
Beyond that, some here or there took the rule about things offered to idols as
a general ban of those foods in the Jewish law way--unclean foods that made the
partaker of them unclean. We can safely dismiss that interpretation due to
apostle Paul's later writings (1 Cor.8-11:1,17-33; Col.2:16-23).
Christianity wasn't considered a branch of Judaism, and wasn't debated as a
branch of Judaism in temples, after Jerusalem fell in 70 AD. The historical ad-
vantage of the view that the blood rule was addressed to Gentile Christians to
have them not offend the Jewish law followers is that a diplomatic concern to
appease non-Christian Jews would be more likely to be lost to some after the
situation it was for didn't exist anymore. After 70 AD, as Christianity moved
away from Judaism and into areas farther from Israel and Jewish temples found
otherwise, a section would be more liable to get the wrong idea about it, and
schisms about what it meant resulted. If it was a food ban that applied any-
where regardless of the Christians proximity to Jewish people, it would have
been more consistently maintained.
If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.