Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

THE ARK.—Gen. 6:9–22

A Few Vocabulary Words First

Genesis 6:9. דּוֹר age, time from birth to death, applied either to an individual or the whole contemporary race, running parallel with some leading individual. Hence the race or generation living during that time.

Genesis 6:14. תֵּבָה chest, ark. It is used only of this vessel of Noah’s construction, and of the little vessel in which Moses was put (Ex. 2:3, 5). The root, according to Fürst, means to be hollow. אֵבֶה a cognate word, signifies a reed; κιβωτὸς, LXX. גֹּפֶר α. λ., perhaps fir, cypress, resinous wood. קֵן nest, room; r. prepare, rear up.

Genesis 6:16. צֹהַר shining, light; not the same as the הַלּוֹן (Gen. 8:6), or the aperture through which Noah let out the raven.

Genesis 6:18. בְּרִית covenant; r. cut, eat, choose, decide.

The close of the preceding section introduces the opening topic of this one. The same rule applies to all that has gone before. The generations of the skies and the land (Gen. 2:4) are introduced by the finishing of the skies and the land (2:1); the generations of man in the line of Seth (v. 1), by the birth of Seth (4:25); and now the generations of Noah, by the notice that Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah. The narrative here also, as usual, reverts to a point of time before the stage of affairs described in the close of the preceding passage. Yet there is nothing here that seems to indicate a new author, as the literary critics would suggest. The previous paragraph is historical and closely connected with the end of the fourth chapter, and it suitably prepares for the proceedings of Noah, under the divine direction, on the eve of the deluge. We have now a recapitulation of the agent and the occasion, and then the divine commission and its execution.

Genesis 6:9-12 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
⁹This is the history of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless^[58] in his generation. Noah walked^[59] with God. ¹⁰Noah became^[60] the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

¹¹Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. ¹²And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

^[58] Blameless: (Heb. תָּם tam; תָּמִים tamim; Gr. ἄμωμος amōmos; ἀμώμητος amōmētos; ἀπρόσκοπος aproskopos) means, “perfect, blameless, sincerity, entire, whole, complete, and full.” Of course, Noah, Jacob, and Job were not literally perfect. When used of imperfect humans, the terms are relative, not absolute. However, if one is fully committed to following a life course based on God’s will and purposes, fully living by his laws, repents when he falls short, God will credit his righteousness. – Gen. 6:6; 25:27; Job 9:20-22l Ps. 119:1; Pro. 11:20; Phil 2:15; 1 Thess. 5:23.

^[59] Walk: (הָלַךְ halak) in integrity (Heb. tōm) a state of blamelessness being free of guilt. (Prov. 2:7) In the Bible, the expression “to walk” is figurative and illustrative and can mean to follow a certain course of action, as “Noah walked with God.” (Gen. 6:9; 5:22) Those who walk with God follow the life course outlined by God’s Word and will find his favor, that is, be pleasing to him. Pursuing such a life course makes you different from most unbelievers. The Greek New Testament uses the same illustrative expression, contrasting two different courses of action sought by one before and after becoming a servant of God. (Eph. 2:2, 10; 4:17; 5:2) Similarly, “running” is also used to symbolize a course of action. (1 Pet. 4:4) God tells us that the prophets in Judah “ran” though he did not send them, yet they took the prophetic course, prophesied falsely. (Jer. 23:21) Paul gives us a visual picture of the Christian course in terms of “running.” He compares it to a race that a person must run while also obeying the rules of the race if they are to win the prize. – 1 Cor. 9:24; Gal. 2:2; 5:7.

^[60] Lit begot

Genesis 6:9–12. Here are the man and the occasion. 9, 10. The generations of Noah. In the third section, we had the generations of man; now we are limited to Noah, because he is himself at peace with God and is now the head and representative of those in the same blessed relationship. The narrative, therefore, for the first time, formally confines itself to the portion of the human family in communion with God. Two new and important epithets here characterize Noah—just and perfect. It is to be remembered that he had already found grace in the eyes of Jehovah. Adam was created good; but by disobedience he became guilty, and all his race, Noah among the rest, became involved in that guilt. To be just is to be right in point of law, and thereby entitled to all the blessings of the acquitted and justified. When applied to the guilty, this epithet implies pardon of sin among other benefits of grace. It also presupposes that spiritual change by which the soul returns from estrangement to reconciliation with God. Hence, Noah is not only just, but perfect. This attribute of character imports not only the turning from darkness to light, from error to truth, from wrong to right, but the stability of moral determination which arises from the struggle, the trial, the victory of good over evil, therein involved. The just is the right in law; the perfect is the tested in holiness. In his ages; among the men of his age. This phrase indicates the contrast between Noah and the men of his day. He was probably of pure descent and in that respect, also distinguished from his contemporaries who were the offspring of promiscuous intermarriage between the godly and the ungodly. Noah walked with God, like Enoch. This is the native consequence of his victory over sin and his acceptance with God. His sons are mentioned, as they are essentially connected with the following events.

Genesis 6:11-12 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
¹¹Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. ¹²And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

Genesis 6:11-12. And the land was corrupt. In contrast with Noah, the rest of the race were corrupt,—entirely depraved by sin. It was filled with violence,—with the outward exhibition of inward carnality. And God saw this. It was patent to the eye of Heaven. This is the ground of the following commission.

Genesis 6:13–21. The directions concerning the ark embrace the purpose to destroy the race of man (13), the plan and specification of the ark (14–16), the announcement of the deluge (17), the arrangements for the preservation of Noah and his family, and certain kinds of animals (18–21).

Genesis 6:13 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
¹³Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.

Genesis 6:13. The end of all flesh. The end may mean either the point to which it tends, or the extermination of the race. The latter is the simpler. All flesh is to be understood of the whole race, while yet it does not preclude the exception of Noah and his family. This teaches us to beware of applying an inflexible literality to such terms as all, when used in the sense of ordinary conversation. Is come before me, is in the contemplation of my mind as an event soon to be realized. For the land is filled with violence. The reason. I will destroy them. The resolve. There is retribution here, for the words corrupt and destroy are the same in the original.

Genesis 6:14–16 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

¹⁴Make yourself an ark of gopher wood.^[61] Make rooms in the ark and cover it inside and out with pitch. ¹⁵This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits,^[62] its breadth fifty cubits,^[63] and its height thirty cubits.^[64] ¹⁶You shall make a roof^[65] for the ark and finish it to a cubit^[66] from the above;^[67] and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks.

^[61] A resinous wood, possibly cypress (wood). The exact identity of the wood is unknown; “gopher wood” is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew.
^[62] That is, one cubit equals approx. 45 cm or 18 in.
^[63] That is, one cubit equals approx. 45 cm or 18 in.
^[64] That is one cubit equals approx. 45 cm or 18 in.
^[65] Or window, that is, an opening for the provision of light.
^[66] That is, one cubit equals approx. 45 cm or 18 in.
^[67] That is, top

Genesis 6:14–16. The ark. Reckoning the cubit at 1.8 feet, we find the length to be about 540, the breadth 90, and the height 54 feet. The construction of such a vessel implies great skill in carpentry. The lighting apparatus is not described so particularly that we can form any conception of it. It was probably in the roof. The roof may have been flat. And to a cubit shalt thou finish it above. The cubit is possibly the height of the parapet round the lighting and ventilating aperture. The opening occupied, it may be, a considerable portion of the roof, and was covered during the rain with an awning (מִכְסֶה Gen. 8:13). If, however, it was in the sides of the ark, the cubit was merely its height. It was then finished with a strong railing, which went round the whole ark, and over which the abovementioned cover hung down on every side. The door was in the side, and the stories were three. In each were of course many “nests” or chambers for animals and stores. It may be curious to a mechanical mind to frame the details of this structure from the general hints here given; but it could not serve any practical end. Only the animals necessary to man, or peculiar to the region covered by the deluge, required to be included in the ark. It seems likely that wild animals in general were not included. It is obvious, therefore, that we cannot calculate the number of animals preserved in the ark, or compare the space they would require with its recorded dimensions. We may rest assured that there was accommodation for all that needed to be there.

Genesis 6:17 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
¹⁷Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

Genesis 6:17. The method of destruction is now specified. A water flood shall cover the land, in which all flesh shall perish. I, behold, I. This catastrophe is due to the interposition of the Creator. It does not come according to the ordinary laws of physics, but according to the higher law of ethics.

Genesis 6:18–21 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
¹⁸But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. ¹⁹And of all living creatures of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. ²⁰Of the flying creatures after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort will come to you to keep them alive. ²¹As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them.”

Genesis 6:18–21. The covenant with Noah. Here is the first appearance of a covenant between God and man on the face of Scripture. A covenant is a solemn compact, tacit or express, between two parties, in which each is bound to perform his part. Hence a covenant implies the moral faculty; and wherever the moral faculty exists, there must needs be a covenant. Consequently, between God and man there was of necessity a covenant from the very beginning, though the name do not appear. At first it was a covenant of works, in regard to man; but now that works have failed, it can only be a covenant of grace to the penitent sinner. My covenant. The word my points to its original establishment with Adam. My primeval covenant, which I am resolved not to abandon. Will I establish. Though Adam has failed, yet will I find means of maintaining my covenant of life with the seed of the woman. With thee. Though all flesh be to perish through breach of my covenant, yet will I uphold it with thee. Go into the ark. This is the means of safety. Some may say in their hearts, this is a clumsy way to save Noah. But if he is to be saved, there must be some way. And it is not a sign of wisdom to prescribe the way to the All-wise. Instead let us reflect that the erection of this ark was a daily warning to a wicked race, a deepening lesson of reliance on God to Noah and his household, and a most salutary occupation for the progenitors of the future race of mankind. And thy sons, etc. Noah’s household share in the covenant.

Genesis 6:19-20 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
¹⁹And of all living creatures of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. ²⁰Of the flying creatures after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort will come to you to keep them alive.

Genesis 6:19-20. And of all the living. For the sake of Noah, the animal species also shall be preserved, two of each, male and female. They are to come in pairs for propagation. 20. The fowl, the cattle, the creeping thing or smaller animals, are to come. From this it appears that the wild animals are not included among the inmates of the ark. (See Gen. 7:2, 3, 8.) The word all is not to be pressed beyond the specification of the writer. As the deluge was universal only in respect to the human race, it was unnecessary to include any animals but those near man, and within the range of the overwhelming waters. 21. Fodder and other provisions for a year have to be laid in.

Genesis 6:22 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
²²And Noah did according to all that God had commanded him. He did just so.

Genesis 6:22. The obedience of Noah and the accomplishment of his task are here recorded. The building of so enormous a fabric must have occupied many years.

By James G. Murphy and Edward D. Andrews

BIBLE DIFFICULTIES

How can Genesis 6:19 be reconciled with Genesis 7:2?

Genesis 6:19 relates God’s command to Noah: “You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you” (NIV). Genesis 7:2–3 records God’s additional instruction: “Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.” Some have suggested that these diverse numbers, two and seven, involve some sort of contradiction and indicate conflicting traditions later combined by some redactor who didn’t notice the difference between the two.

It seems strange that this point should ever have been raised, since the reason for having seven of the clean species is perfectly evident: they were to be used for sacrificial worship after the Flood had receded (as indeed they were, according to Gen. 8:20: “Then Noah built an altar to Jehovah and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it”). Obviously if there had not been more than two of each of these clean species, they would have been rendered extinct by their being sacrificed on the altar. But in the case of the unclean animals and birds, a single pair would suffice, since they would not be needed for blood sacrifice.

Is a universal Flood consistent with geologic evidence?

The biblical record in Genesis 7–8 describes no local inundation confined to the Mesopotamian Valley (as some scholars have suggested) but a water level that surpassed the summits of the highest mountains. Genesis 7:19 states: “And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens [lit., `which were under all heavens’ or ‘under the whole sky’] were covered” (NASB, italics mine). Verse 20 then indicates that the water level rose even fifteen cubits higher than that (fifteen cubits being about thirty feet).

Now the most elementary knowledge of physical law leads to the observation that water seeks its own level. A great tidal wave may temporarily reach a greater altitude than the general sea level, but the episode here described lasted for about a year; and there is therefore far more involved here than a temporary surge. If the water level rose thirty thousand feet so as to submerge the peak of Mount Everest, the world’s tallest mountain, it must have reached that level everywhere else on earth. Even the overtopping of Mount Ararat, the resting place of Noah’s ark, required a level well in excess of seventeen thousand feet. Water rising to such an altitude would certainly engulf the entire surface of the planet, except for the highest peaks of the Andes and Himalayas, plus a few in North America and Africa. Therefore we must conclude that the Flood was indeed universal, or else that the biblical record was grievously in error. While it is doubtless true that mountain uplift is still going on, in North America, at any rate, even the reduction of a few thousand feet in the altitude of ranges so lofty as the Andes and Himalayas would not have substantially changed the necessity of worldwide distribution of the Flood waters.

The question of geological evidence is very much debated by geologists, according to the position they take toward the validity of the biblical record. Some Christian geologists feel that some of the major seismic disturbances indicated in various parts of the globe at the Cenozoic levels are best explained as triggered by the Flood (cf. Gen. 7:11: “On the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open”). Some of the strata containing large boulders in the midst of coarse gravel are plausibly attributed to violent tidal movements and water agitation beyond anything known at the present time. But perhaps the most striking evidences of the violence of the Deluge throughout the earth are to be found in the amazing profusion of Pleistocene or Recent animals whose bones have been discovered in a violently separated state in several ossiferous fissures that have been excavated in various locations in Europe and North America.

Rehwinkel (The Flood) indicates that these fissures occur even in hills of considerable height, and they extend to a depth of anywhere from 140 feet to 300 feet. Since no skeleton is complete, it is safe to conclude that none of these animals (mammoths, bears, wolves, oxen, hyenas, rhinoceros, aurochs, deer, and many smaller mammals) fell into these fissures alive, nor were they rolled there by streams. Yet because of the calcite cementing of these heterogeneous bones together, they must necessarily have been deposited under water. Such fissures have been discovered in Odessa by the Black Sea, in the island of Kythera off the Peloponnesus, in the island of Malta, in the Rock of Gibraltar, and even at Agate Springs, Nebraska (which was excavated in 1876 over a ten-acre area).

Such geologic evidence is of decisive importance, even though it is seldom mentioned by scientists who reject the accuracy of Scripture. This is just exactly the kind of evidence that a brief but violent episode of this sort would be expected to show within the short span of one year. Of course there would be little sedimentary precipitation possible for such a short period of time. There are some negative evidences, to be sure, such as the cones of loose scoria and ashes from volcanoes in the region of Auvergne, France, which are alleged to be thousands of years older than the supposed date of the Flood. But until it is decisively proven that these volcanoes were antediluvian (the actual date of the Flood has not been precisely determined yet), and until it is demonstrated by a year’s submergence under brackish water that such volcanic formations would show striking changes in appearance perceptible to the modern investigator, it seems premature to affirm that this type of evidence is even more compelling than that of the above-mentioned ossiferous fissures, which so definitely testify to the type of Deluge described in Genesis 7.

One notable feature of the biblical account sets it off from all other Flood narratives discoverable among other nations. Flood sagas have been preserved among the most diverse tribes and nations all over the world: the Babylonians (who called their Noah by the name of Utnapishtim), the Sumerians with their Ziusidru, the Greeks with their Deucalion, the Hindus with their Manu, the Chinese with their Fah-he, the Hawaiians with their Nu-u, the Mexican Indians with their Tezpi, the Algonquins with their Manabozho. All these relate how this lone survivor (with perhaps his wife, children, and a friend or two) was saved from the destruction of a universal flood and was then faced with the task of repopulating a devastated earth after the flood waters had receded. But of all these accounts, only the Genesis record indicates with the exactitude of a diary or ship’s log the date of the inception of the Deluge (when Noah was exactly 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the seventh month of that same year), the length of the actual downpour (40 days), the length of time that the water-depth remained at its maximum (150 days), the date at which the tops of the mountains became visible once more (on the first day of the tenth month), the length of time until the first evidence of new plant growth was brought to Noah in the beak of his dove (47 days, according to Gen. 8:6–9), and the precise day of Noah’s emerging from the ark on Mount Ararat (his 601st year, the first day of the first month). Here we have a personal record that apparently goes back to Noah himself.

The Babylonian account contains vivid details of how Utnapishtim built his ark, but there is no suggestion of a specific date. Like most legends handed down orally across the centuries or millennia, the Gilgamesh Epic (Tablet 11) fails to say anything at all about the year, even though the friendly sun-god, Shamash, had warned of the precise day when the prospective survivors would have to board their ark. It would seem that this Babylonian account is substantially closer to the Genesis record than any of the other Flood stories. Thus a friendly god warns the hero in advance and orders him to build an ark, to save not only his own family but also representative animals. That ark finally grounds on a mountain named Nisir (in the Zagros Range, northeast of Babylon); and Utnapishtim sends out a dove, a swallow, and a raven to bring back a report of conditions outside. Then finally he emerged with his family to offer sacrifice to the now-famished gods (who had been without altar-food for the weeks while the Flood was covering the earth).

Some comparative religionists have suggested that the Babylonian myth was earlier than the Hebrew, and that the compilers of Genesis 7 and 8 borrowed from it. But this is rendered most unlikely in view of the significant contrasts between the two. Thus, the ark built by Utnapishtim was completely cubic, equipped with six decks for all the animals to be quartered in. A more impractical and unseaworthy craft could hardly be imagined. But Noah’s ark was three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits deep—an ideal set of measurements for an ocean liner. If the cubit measured twenty-four inches in that earlier period (as it may well have done in an age when men were bigger than they were after the Flood—cf. Gen. 6:4), then the ark of Noah would have been six hundred feet long, by one hundred feet wide, and sixty feet deep. If it was fairly boxlike in shape (as would be probable in view of its special purpose), it would have had a capacity of 3.6 million cubic feet. This is the capacity of about two thousand cattle cars, each of which can carry 18 to 20 cattle, 60 to 80 hogs, or 80 to 100 sheep.

At the present time, there are only 290 main species of land animals larger in size than sheep. There are 757 more species ranging in size from sheep to rats, and there are 1,358 species smaller than rats. Two individuals of each of these species would fit very comfortably into two thousand cattle cars, with plenty of room for fodder. But it is more than doubtful whether the same could be said of Utnapishtim’s unwieldy craft, subject to frequent capsizing in heavy seas, in view of its cubic shape. Moreover, the stark contrast between the quarrelsome and greedy gods of the Babylonian pantheon and the majestic holiness of Yahweh, the absolute Sovereign over the universe, furnishes the strongest basis for classifying the Gilgamesh account as a garbled, polytheistic derivative from the same original episode as that contained in Genesis 7–8 The Hebrew account is couched in terms of sober history and accurate recording that reflect a source derived from the persons who were actually involved in this adventure. The Gilgamesh Epic is far more mythical and vague.

For readers who wish to do more extensive reading on the worldwide spread of the Flood saga, see James Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament, vol. 1 (London: Macmillan & Co., 1918) or Richard Andree’s more compendious work, Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet (Brunswick, 1891). For the Babylonian Flood epic, see Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1949).

Are Christians still forbidden to eat blood?

After the Flood, Jehovah renewed His covenant with Noah and gave him certain basic guidelines for the ordering of postdiluvian society (Gen. 9:1–16). Verse 4 has this important prohibition: “You shall not eat flesh with its life [nep̱eš], that is, its blood” (NASB). The special sanctity of the blood leads to a command for the capital punishment of any and all who commit murder. Later, in Leviticus 17:10–11, the reason for avoiding blood as food is spelled out more clearly: “Any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life [nep̱eš] of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement” (NASB). The following verses go on to specify that even wild game must be completely bled before it may be eaten.

The question confronting believers in this New Testament era is whether this prohibition pertains to us today. The revelation granted to Peter in Acts 10:10–15 taught him that the ancient restrictions of the Mosaic Law concerning forbidden items of food were no longer to be observed. All the quadrapeds, crawling creatures, and birds were to be considered clean and fit for human consumption. The important factor here was the application of this principle by analogy to all the races of mankind, both Jew and Gentile—all of them were rendered suitable for salvation and grace through the shed blood of Jesus. The question remains, however, whether this removal of the categories of unclean food set forth in such detail in Leviticus 11:1–45 and Deuteronomy 14:3–21 actually lifts the restriction against the consumption of blood. Now that Christ has shed His sacred blood, does this remove all sanctity from blood as such? Or is it still to be honored as precious because of its symbolism of Calvary? In other words, does permission to eat all animals and birds without discrimination involve a license to eat the blood of these animals? Or should they first be properly bled by the butcher before being cooked and prepared for human consumption?

The answer to that last question seems to be yes. Some years after Peter had received God’s special instruction through his dream, the Jerusalem Council was held in order to consider whether the Gentile converts should be required to adopt the ceremonial requirements of Judaism in order to become Christians. As president of the council, James stated: “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain [1] from things contaminated by idols and [2] from fornication and [3] from what is strangled and from blood” (Acts 15:19–20, NASB). This found general approval by the rest of the assembly. So they decided on the following answer to the Gentile converts in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden that these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well” (Acts 15:28–29, NASB).

From the above passage we gather (1) that this admonition to avoid eating blood came subsequent to Peter’s vision and therefore was not in any way modified or abrogated by the earlier revelation in Acts 10; (2) that this was coupled with a prohibition against fornication—which can never be regarded as an obsolete restriction but rather as an abiding principle binding on the conscience of all Christians; (3) that this insistence on the continuing sanctity of blood was decreed not only by men but by the authority of the Holy Spirit Himself. To be sure, some have inferred from Paul’s later discussion in 1 Corinthians 8 concerning meat offered to idols that the prohibition contained in the letter of the Jerusalem Council was not really binding for all time to come. But actually Paul’s objection centered not so much on the inherent sinfulness of eating such food but rather on the stumbling block such an example might furnish to newly converted pagans who had formerly sacrificed to idols.

In 1 Corinthians 10:27–28 Paul enlarges on this matter, saying: “If one of the unbelievers invites you, and you wish to go, eat anything that is set before you, without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone should say to you, ‘This is meat sacrificed to idols,’ do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake.” This implies that whether or not a believer might partake in private of meat that had previously been offered on an idolatrous altar, his use of it before others would lead to his causing them to stumble. Therefore it was still forbidden to the New Testament believer on the ground of the spiritual harm that it might do to recent Gentile converts. The implication seems very clear that we are still to respect the sanctity of the blood, since God has appointed it to be a symbol of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. Therefore it is not to be consumed by any believer who wishes to be obedient to Scripture.

Christ’s solemn statement in John 6:53–58 concerning believers’ partaking of His flesh and blood by faith quite obviously refers only to the spiritual response of true believers in regard to the atoning sacrifice of Christ on Golgotha. We appropriate His body and blood by faith, together with all His saving benefits, as we trust wholly in His sinless life and in His offering of His innocent body as a vicarious atonement for our sins. But this has no bearing whatever on the question of whether we way disregard God’s earnest admonition not to partake of physical blood as an item of food.^[1]

^[1] Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 81–86.

Bibliography

Edward D Andrews, BIBLE DIFFICULTIES: How to Approach Difficulties In the Bible, Christian Publishing House. 2020.
Edward D. Andrews, INTERPRETING THE BIBLE: Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, Christian Publishing House, 2016.
Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982).
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., “Appearance,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979–1988).
Hermann J. Austel, R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999).
Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003).
James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
John Joseph Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1-4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989).
John F. MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries: Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).
Thomas Howe; Norman L. Geisler. Big Book of Bible Difficulties, The: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation. Kindle Edition.
Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Chronology, Old Testament,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988).
W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1996).