Is it Wrong for Christians to Eat Animal Blood Dishes?

There is the controversy whether or not Christians are allowed to eat blood dishes. The controversy doesn't really spring too much from the Old Testament ceremonial restrictions (such as not eating pork while considering a kosher diet for health reasons can be accepted) but from Acts 15:28-29. So what was really going on? There was some problems between Gentile believers and Jewish believers. As it was seen, Jewish believers may have no longer been trusting the Law but they are still believing in certain ceremonial laws such as medical circumcision and not eating foods banned in Leviticus 11. On the other hand, Gentiles were probably too used to eating crustaceans and pork which were not eaten by the Jews for some time.

There is the problem that the Jews may have thought that the Gentiles were doing such practices in the spirit of Antinomianism or that salvation is a license to sin. However, the Bible has Jesus saying in Mark 7:19 that it's not what comes on the inside but on the outside that makes a man unclean. I started studying Old Testament ceremonial laws and why they existed. There were scientific reasons why clothing with mixed fabric (which wouldn't be practical in the Middle East that time) and not eating of certain food. From the Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible and John Gill's Expository - it can be seen that the swine is obviously a foul feeding animal. Eating swine's flesh in hot climates is particularly viable to produce leprosy, scurvy and various cutaneous eruptions! Such is the wisdom of God to disallow it! Eating of fish without fins and scales in hot climates also brought malignant disorders and they are scavengers. Also, eating blood is unhealthy because it can carry various diseases plus preparing pork's blood needs extra caution and careful preparation for that reason. However, cannibalism will always be wrong because it's degrading to human life.

Now so why did the New Testament actually raise up the issue of not eating blood to the Gentile believers? Here's an explanation from Evidence for Christianity that might be able to help explain why it was so:

This brings up the question of how to apply Acts 15:28-29. The key is to look at the context of the passage. In what is known as the Council of Jerusalem, the question of what to do about the conflict of practice between almost purely Gentile churches such as those begun by Paul and the almost purely Jewish churches in Palestine. The Christians in Jerusalem and probably in other churches in Palestine had been observing most of the regulations of the Mosaic Law up to the time recorded in Acts 15. They observed the Sabbath and most or all of the other Jewish holy days. They also continued a kosher or nearly kosher food practice. They were still circumcising their male children. Paul did not impose these practices on the Gentile Christians simply because they are NOT required by Christianity. We are not commanded to circumcise our children, to observe Jewish festivals or to eat kosher anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, Paul speaks very strongly against commanding such things in the books of Colossians and Galatians. However, when the church leaders met together in Jerusalem, they wanted to find some sort of middle ground which would satisfy Paul’s insistence that we Christians are not bound by Jewish laws but which was sensitive to Jewish practices. It seems that they decided to ask the Gentile Christians to avoid certain practices which were particularly offensive to the Jews. This must be seen as a compromise for the sake of love and unity. We can assume that the eating of blood was particularly offensive to the Jews. Paul conceded, out of humility and a desire to be sensitive, to ask the Gentile Christians to forego the eating of blood so as to make it easier for the Jewish Christians to accept them in full fellowship.

If you look at Acts 15 and think of the decision of the council as a temporary expedient in order to maintain unity within the church, then it all makes sense. We have a few admonitions in scripture to avoid certain practices which would offend others, even if they are not inherently wrong. Romans 14 is a discussion from Paul which suggests that the strong (in the context, those who are more mature and understand that a particular practice is not wrong per se) should be willing to forego certain freedoms for the sake of the weak (those with a more tender conscience). I believe that Paul applied this to his relationships with the Jewish Christians.

This would really be something to think about. You may not only be dealing with Jewish Christians but also Muslims and Jews. The average Muslim today may not be a Jihadist but he or she is still bound by certain Islamic dietary laws - that includes not eating pork and food made from animal blood. It would be a really dumb idea to go soulwinning to Muslims only to make it look like Christianity is a license to sin by eating roasted pork or blood pudding. It would become a stumblingblock and there's a saying that once you lose your testimony - it's very hard to recover it. Remember when David stumbled? The world roasted him in the flames of hypocrisy while still applauding the evils of their own. This is one precaution Christians should have that sometimes temporarily losing certain degrees of freedom is necessary in preaching to unbelievers.