Carol Balizet Cult: 5. Prohibitions Against Blood by Carol Balizet

https://web.archive.org/web/20050206041336/http://homeinzion.com/blood.html

Prohibitions Against Blood

by Carol Balizet

The prohibition against eating blood is in many scriptures. The meaning of that verb is just what we'd expect: eat, consume, devour. Today, through the marvels of man's technology, we can receive it directly into our blood streams. Isn't it logical God wouldn't want that either? Does the fact that we by-pass the digestive system somehow eliminate the defilement?

The world says "give; it, share it, spread it around!"

Bumper stickers and posters proclaim, "Blood; is Life; Pass It On", and that's a very subtle perversion of what God says about blood. Because of course it is life. It's the essence of the Atonement and in almost every culture its shedding has been a symbol of sacrifice, of death.

But even more than that, blood is alive. After it's been drawn, it's kept refrigerated in blood banks, and it must be used within a certain time limit while it's still alive. This time limit is called the shelf life. So blood is different from other parts of the body in this; it actually has life. It's the blood which carries life to all the rest of the body.

Blood has all kinds of properties which make it unique. For one thing, it talks. The blood of Abel cried to God from the ground (Genesis 4:10) and Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, sprinkled His blood "that; speaketh better things than Abel" (Hebrews 12:24). In addition, its presence on the doorposts gives a message to the Angel of Death; it was a plague in Egypt; it was a sign of covering; shedding it (too much of it) made David unfit to build the temple; it was used as a sacrifice as well as an atonement; the shedding of innocent blood is something God says He hates; and it pollutes the land. It has power and significance and meaning both naturally and spiritually. And in the final analysis, the world is right in this: blood is life. But give it, share it, spread it around? I don't think so. Not if the word of God is our guide.

God forbids the consuming of blood

Leviticus 17:11 says, "The; life of the flesh is in the blood..." and verse 14 of that chapter says, "For; it is the life of all flesh, the blood of it is for the life thereof..." and the prohibition about it follows: "Therefore; I said unto the children of Israel, ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh, for the life of all flesh is in the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off." (Notice that He says "all flesh", and says to eat the blood of "no manner of flesh".; So the common claim that these restrictions refer only to animal blood are not valid.)

Here are a few more Old Testament prohibitions about blood:

"[It shall be] a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood." (Leviticus 3:17)
"But; flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Genesis 9:4)
"Moreover; ye shall eat no manner of blood... in any of your dwellings. (Leviticus 7:26)
"And; whatsoever man [there be] of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people." (Leviticus 17:10).
"Only; ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water." (Deuteronomy 12:16)
"Only; be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood [is] the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh." (Deuteronomy 12:23)
"Then; they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against the Lord, in that they eat with the blood... sin not against the Lord in eating with the blood." (1 Samuel 14:34)

We're discussing here an old testament law which of course reflects a clear view of God's opinion. But in this case we also have a New Testament ratification; Acts 15 makes it clear that God has not changed His mind on this subject.

This account tells us about how Paul and Barnabas, after great success in evangelizing the Gentiles, journeyed to Jerusalem to get counsel about how to handle the Judaizers, because "...there; rose up certain [men] saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses." So the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

Peter had an opinion, and he voiced it (why are we not surprised?) and then so did James. Here's what he said: "Wherefore; my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood."

Here's a part of the letter they wrote: "...we; have heard, that certain [men] have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment... [But] it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

So this is New Testament Scripture; three separate times we are told what was decided: the two passages cited above, Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29 and again in Acts 21:25: "As; touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."

These accounts tell us how the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem set the policy concerning the conversion of Gentiles. What portions of the law would be applied? Circumcision? Grace only? The answer is clear, spoken once and confirmed two more times: four restrictions, and one concerns blood.

The New Testament word isn't limited to eating or drinking blood; the new believers were to abstain from it. That's Strong's #567 and it means "To; keep away from, to hold oneself distant from, refrain, abstain, be distant." The very opposite of receiving it into our own blood streams, mingling it with our own "life;".;

Is the modern church subject to the decision of the apostles and elders of the early church? How does the Lord expect us to relate to their decision? It isn't wise to ignore their opinion simply because it doesn't coincide with modern thinking or line up with some worldly system, or because it just never occurred to us to obey. Certainly we over-ride their verdict only after prayer and seeking God. Those men were God's spokesmen, what they said has never been rescinded by God, and they said don't do it.

The frequently given justification, that the references in Acts apply to animal blood, is simply not true. The word used is defined as: "Human; or animal blood; a life force; that which resembles blood, as grape juice."

So the question of taking blood is not a hazy, unclear matter; God has made His position known. What the medical system does is diametrically opposed to the revealed will of God.

I'm going to take a little rabbit trail here because I simply cannot resist commenting on this strange fact. I know literally dozens of Christians who follow at least some of the Old Testament food laws.(Even more follow modern food laws handed down by the modern gods of healing - scientists, doctors, nutritionists, etc.)

The Christians who embrace the laws of Moses concerning diet apparently do it for a number of different motives: to be more healthy, to be more pleasing to God, to be more Jewish. But I don't know one single person who abstains from blood for any of those reasons, and apparently they don't even consider it. They seem to be unaware that there's a connection between the laws concerning food and those concerning blood. They don't seem to realize the inconsistency of obeying food laws and ignoring what might be called "blood; laws".;

And, unlike the prohibitions against blood which were ratified in the New Covenant, the Mosaic food laws were rescinded. Many New Testament passages validate this. It's very bewildering to me.

Click here to return to top

Spiritual results of disobeying God about blood

Like every other mandate from God, the prohibitions regarding blood were given for our welfare. God's point of view about anything will always reflect His loving concern for us. God says the giving and receiving of blood is wrong offensive to Him, dangerous, forbidden, destructive. And this is true, as the word of God is always true, no matter what the world, the medical system, the hierarchy of the Church, our own reasoning or anyone else says. These practices have a injurious effect on us.

Because the soul life is in the blood, that's where the destruction is, in the soul. What does that mean? What is the soul, and what happens to it as a result from shedding or from not "abstaining; from" blood?

Like most Christians, I personally believe in the trinity of God, and as a corollary I assume that humans made in His image are triune. This is confirmed in Scripture many times, but we'll just use Hebrews 4:12: "For; the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit..." (Emphasis mine.) This passage states that soul and spirit are disparate; so actually if this were the only Scripture we had, it would be enough to negate the possibility that the "soul; life" which is in the blood is equivalent to "the; spirit".;

So let's move on from there. If it's not our spirit, what is it?

Because we are both spiritual and physical beings, every experience of our lives will impact us in both realms. What is done in the natural realm is temporal and "earthy;" this realm is "seen;" and it shall "pass; away".; (Romans 1) The natural components of the blood - the red and white cells, the platelets, the plasma, et al - are merely physical and will metabolize and eventually be gone.

But in the unseen, eternal, spiritual realm, we are dealing with the unseen, eternal, spiritual factors of the blood - that "soul; life of all flesh" which the Bible says "dwells; therein".;

What are these components? Just what does constitute the make-up of the soul? Some Christians define the soul as the personality, but that doesn't really help. We just move from defining "soul;" to defining "personality;".; Other Christians say the soul is comprised of the mind, will, emotions and memories. I don't know where this list of ingredients came from - it's not directly from Scripture - but I've heard it from many sources for decades, and I'm willing to accept it. (Some people add things like iniquities, demons, curses, etc. to the list. They think these things also reside in the soul.)

But whatever the reality of "soul; life" is, it's all in "the; blood" - God says so - and that part, that spiritual dimension of the blood, is eternal. Whatever "the; personality" is, the core make-up of our being, its residence is in the blood, and it's as much as part of what is "shed;" as the serum and cells.

In the case of donating blood, we are giving up, pouring out, surrendering, sacrificing a part of our souls. Maybe there is no lingering loss in the physical realm, since our bodies are wonderfully made to restore themselves and our blood volume will replace itself; but there is a permanent forfeiture in the soul. A diminution, a deprivation, a leanness, which lasts until that soul life is called back. This is especially true of those who give blood frequently, giving a large amount.

In the case of receiving blood, we have the "confusion; of persons" which God found so abhorrent in the time of Noah. Our own soul life is mingled with that of the unknown donor. We receive not only the natural parts of the blood but also the spiritual factors of that other person's heritage. There is enormous danger in accepting the blood of other people into our bodies. Whether or not we believe it, whether we're aware of it or not, spiritual changes occur; and they last until we deal with the situation.

Other people may not have studied this concept; the idea of accepting foreign blood into our bodies, in light of Scripture, but most evidently believe it, at least on some level. During the aftermath of the 9-11 crisis, thousands of people donated blood and Yasser Arafat was one of these donors. He was shown on TV, smiling, reclining on a Gurney, sleeve rolled up to receive the needle. Many people told me, "I; sure wouldn't want to get his blood!" I wondered why they felt this way - what belief was this repugnance based in - and I even asked a couple of people. Nobody could explain their reluctance, but it was plain that on some deep level they recognized that the infusion of another person's blood into their veins would produce at least some degree of co-mingling. And who knows? Maybe other donors are worse than Arafat! The only safe thing is to keep all strange blood out.

Blood banks screen blood for compatibility and for such contaminants as they recognize, but there is no screening for the spiritual factors. It may well be that we get some part of all the donor's demons, blood-line curses, generational sins, destructive behavior patterns, strongholds of deception and unbelief, soul ties, emotional disturbances etc. in addition to the mind, will, memories, emotions. His life is in that blood, and when we receive his blood, we get the whole package, natural and spiritual. We can "catch;" whatever he has, from AIDS and Hepatitis C in the physical realm to suicidal depression and spirits of lust in the spirit realm.

Natural results of disobeying God about blood

Of course, there are other natural dangers to the use of blood; they're well publicised. An Associated Press release in May 1991 states that, "The; Red Cross [has] inadvertently released blood contaminated by Hepatitis, failed to follow safety procedures that guard against the use of AIDS-contaminated blood, and repeatedly failed to report errors and accidents to the [Food and Drug Administration] agency."

This same release states, "Health; officials have reiterated recently that there is no way to guarantee 100 percent safety of blood from the AIDS virus and other contaminants because the available testing procedures are not 100 percent accurate." The taking of blood is risky.

Steven Spenser, writing in March, 1992 for the Associated Press states: "Fewer; than 20 of the nation's 2400 blood banks and plasma centers, representing five percent by volume of all the blood collected currently test for HIV..."
AIDS is probably the most prominent danger and it may be just the front runner in a number of similar diseases. We ignore God's will at great peril. He is not mocked.

Deception in the church about blood

Many churches, perhaps almost all churches, consider the donating of blood a virtuous thing. They have blood drives, bringing the Bloodmobile (I have a good friend who calls it the "Vampire; mobile") right into the church parking lot, honoring those who give. But that's tradition, not Scripture. To call a thing "good;", a thing which God has forbidden or cursed, is to fail as King Saul did in I Samuel 15. He kept alive the "good;" part of the Amalekites. And the kingdom was rent from King Saul.
Also, from Isaiah 5: "Woe; unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" God says this giving and taking and mixing and shedding of blood is wrong and a dangerous thing to do; we disagree with that position at great risk. So it's not taught, almost never even considered, and nobody else believes it - so what? Does that make the word of God invalid? Unimportant? Wrong?

Remember, every time they took a vote in the Bible, the majority was wrong. The little remnant was correct.

In the Old Covenant it was animals who died in sacrifice and their blood was poured out. Then God so loved us that He gave His only begotten Son who died as Sacrifice, and God's blood was poured out.

With increasing evil abroad today, high schools have become armed camps, full of demonic music, violence, illicit yet sanctioned sex and, increasingly, the influence of Satanic cults. Our children should be learning what God says about blood, not what tradition says. We should teach our young people that if they are ever in a situation where others are suggesting that they cut themselves, shed their blood, mingle their blood with that of another, shed and drink the blood of an animal or the blood of another person, they should leave that place at once, praying as they go. There is great danger and unspeakable evil being loosed and no child of God should stay in the presence of such activities, unless he has been sent there by God to do battle.
We don't want our children to be confused, helpless or double-minded in situations like this. But in how many local churches are they being given the message that the shedding of blood is a good, even a righteous thing? Even though God says one of the things He abominates are "hands; which shed innocent blood" (Proverbs 6:17), our churches often call it "good;".; As with the taking of drugs, in the matter of blood the confusion about good versus evil is spreading like a contaminant from parents and leaders who might be expected to know and speak truth down to the youngsters, who are reaping a dreadful harvest of grief and death.

Blood is given medically to pass on the life force of one person to another. And as I understand it, the reason Satanists kill their sacrifices and pour out or drink their blood is the same: in order to receive the life force which was present in whatever it was they killed - the power of a goat if they killed a goat, the power of a dog if the sacrifice were a dog, and the power of a man if they've moved up to human sacrifices.

Blood sacrifice is only the beginning of this evil. Next comes organ transplants, another great evil which is called "good;" by the world. Then will come the increase of genetic engineering, the manipulation and alteration of the genes and chromosomes. Man playing God, saying that man can design and create life.