Leviticus 17:10 - Meaning and Application

Here we have a renewed and firm command against eating blood. This law had already appeared twice in the Levitical law (Leviticus 3:17; Leviticus 7:26), and it also goes back to the command given to Noah (Genesis 9:4). Here, the prohibition is repeated again and again, and Moses points back to the earlier commands in the same way (Leviticus 17:12, 14). A great deal of weight is placed on it, because it carries more meaning than it may seem to at first.

This command was binding not only on the people of Israel, but also on the strangers living among them (Leviticus 17:10). That may have been one reason it was wise, for a time, to forbid blood to the Gentile believers too (Acts 15:29). The penalty was very serious: God said he would set his face against anyone who ate blood deliberately and would cut that person off (Leviticus 17:10, 14). When God turns against a sinner, that sinner is ruined. No creature can stand against the Creator.

God also gives the reason for this law (Leviticus 17:11). It is because the blood makes atonement for the soul, that is, it makes payment for sin and brings reconciliation with God. The life of the flesh is in the blood, so the sacrifice’s blood was poured out on the altar to show that its life was given to God in place of the sinner’s life. The sinner deserved to die, so the sacrifice had to die. That is why without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22).

For that time, this was a very good reason for the command. God wanted to preserve the honor of the way of atonement he had appointed, and keep it fresh in the minds of the people. The blood of the covenant was a visible reminder, so they must not treat blood as a common thing, either by eating it or by trampling it underfoot. In that sense, it was like the special ointment and incense God commanded for his own service.

But this reason is now set aside, which shows that the law was ceremonial, that is, part of the outward worship for that time, and no longer binding in the same way. The blood of Christ, who has come, is the only thing that truly makes atonement for the soul, and the blood of the sacrifices was only a weak picture of it. When the reality comes, the shadow is no longer needed. Animal blood is no longer the ransom, but Christ’s blood alone is. So there is no longer the same reason to avoid blood, and we should not think God meant the rule to continue after its purpose had ended. Blood, if it is prepared in a way that does not make it harmful, is now allowed for food, since it is no longer appointed to make atonement for the soul.

Even so, the law still has a useful lesson. The life is in the blood, which carries life through the body, so God wanted his people to respect life itself, even in animals. He did not want them to become hard, cruel, or bloodthirsty. The blood then pointed forward to atonement in a figure, but now the blood of Christ makes atonement truly and fully. So we must treat that blood with reverence, and not use it as a common thing. God will set his face against those who do so, and they will be cut off (Hebrews 10:29).

Other commands are added here as safeguards around this law. They were to cover the blood of hunted animals (Leviticus 17:13). They were not only to avoid eating it, but to bury it decently, as a sign that they believed some deeper meaning was hidden in this rule. The Jews treated this as a very important command and used a blessing when covering the blood.

They also must not eat an animal that died by itself or was torn by beasts (Leviticus 17:15). In such cases, the blood had either not been drawn out at all, or not properly. God wanted them to be careful about what they ate, not with a selfish curiosity that feeds the appetite, but with a careful restraint that checks it. He did not want his children to grab and eat anything in front of them without thought, but to examine things carefully, so they would also learn in other matters to ask questions for conscience’s sake. Those who rushed to take spoil sinned in this way (1 Samuel 14:32-33).

If someone, through ignorance or carelessness, ate meat from an animal that had not been properly killed, that person had to wash himself and his clothes, or else he would bear his guilt (Leviticus 17:15-16). The uncleanness was ceremonial, and so was the cleansing from it. But if a person despised the given way of cleansing, or refused to submit, he would add moral guilt to the original fault. That is the nature of a law meant to bring relief: the one who obeys it receives the benefit, but the one who rejects it not only remains guilty, he also sins against the remedy God provided for his good.