A general but off-topic question was posed related to this thought. See here: What is the significance of Acts 10:13, 11:7 "make sacrificial slaughter"

Acts 10:10-16 describes Peter's vision of animals of all sorts being placed before him with the command to kill and eat. Peter's statement in verse 14 seems to imply that his concern was the unclean status of the animals in front of him. He does not state anything about blood.

That being said, is there any implication of blood consumption in the wording of verse 13?

καὶ ἐγένετο φωνὴ πρὸς αὐτόν ἀναστάς Πέτρε θῦσον καὶ φάγε

  • I cannot see any way in which the words of verse 13 could be understood to include what is suggested.
    – Nigel J
    Feb 7 '18 at 17:00
  • @NigelJ It doesn't explicitly say - I agree. I am trying to determine if there might or might not be anything implicit. An explicit OT reference, I Sam. 14:32, is what comes to mind as a point of reference.
    – vbnet3d
    Feb 7 '18 at 19:24
  • I would add that under normal circumstances killing and then immediately eating any animal would result in blood consumption, and no mention is made of preparation or cooking either - however, I'm somewhat hesitant to push a vision for those kind of details.
    – vbnet3d
    Feb 7 '18 at 19:42
  • I've heard deer hunters talk about bleeding the deer immediately after killing it so that the meat lasts longer before getting it home.
    – Perry Webb
    Feb 8 '18 at 0:30
  • 1
    Down voter - curious about the DV. This question may not be profound, and the answer may simply be 'no', but it follows the guidelines for a good question as far as I can tell - maybe I'm mistaken though. I would appreciate a comment so it can be improved.
    – vbnet3d
    Feb 8 '18 at 16:59

The simple answer is no. You see, although the Lord commanded Peter to kill and eat, Peter response sharply by saying that he has epnever eaten anying unclean. (NIV Acts 10:14) Then the Lord replies "Do not call anything impure what God has made clean" (NIV Acts 10:15b). This is metaphorical, and God is not actually telling Peter to kill and eat, but rather relating to his work with the Gentiles.

This is also a visions, Peter couldn't have ate anything.

Regarding the Greek translation, the word φάγε is a command to eat, but does not neccessarilly connotate the eating of blood. However, since I am not a Greek scholar, I could be wrong.

Finally, according to the Old Testament, all Jewish sacrfices required the draining of the blood and cooked before consumption. (Leviticus 17, 1 Samuel 14:33) Peter, still being a devout Jew, would probably cook it and drain the blood.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.