Daily Devotion | Leviticus 17 | 2026 February 24

Title: Daily Devotion | Leviticus 17 | 2026 February 24  
Scripture: Leviticus 17 (ESV, reference only)  
Date: 2026 February 24  
Speaker: Rev. John Chen  
Transcribed, translated & edited by: Joseph Wang (Yufan)

Dear brothers and sisters, peace to you. We thank God for His grace in bringing us to a new day to study the Daily Devotion. Today our passage is Leviticus chapter 17. Let us pray. Lord our God, we thank You. We thank You that You are willing to show us such mercy and compassion. Lord, You are willing to tell us about the holiness of blood. Lord, have mercy on us also, that we may follow You. Be with us. In Christ’s name, Amen.

Let us look at Leviticus chapter 17. After the great Day of Atonement has been explained, chapter 17 begins to speak about regulations concerning blood. The regulation is this: no matter what, if you want to offer a sacrifice, if you slaughter a bull or a sheep, you must bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting. That is, you must slaughter the animal for sacrifice in the designated place—at the entrance of the tabernacle—only then is it lawful. Simply speaking, that is the meaning.

And the reason has also been stated, because in verse 7 it says they must no longer sacrifice to the goat demons with whom they play the harlot. So let us restore the background. Israel came out of Egypt with cattle and sheep—they brought livestock out together. In that process, some people may have continued following pagan customs. Pagan religions also have sacrifices. But what is most evil in pagan practice is human sacrifice—later, in God’s judgment on the Canaanites, there will be matters related to that, and in the book of Joshua there will also be such things.

They also offered different kinds of sacrifices. Here God is doing something: He is regulating Israel’s worship. He does not allow them to offer sacrifices outside the tabernacle. Because offering sacrifices outside the tabernacle, to put it plainly, is offering them to demons. That cannot be. If they want to offer sacrifices, they must come to the entrance of the tent of meeting to slaughter the sacrificial animal, to ensure that what they are doing is worshiping Yahweh alone. So here the main issue is actually the second commandment.

The second commandment says you must not bow down to idols. In the wilderness, if you slaughter animals wherever you like, it shows that you are worshiping idols. You must come to the designated place to slaughter the animal, showing that you are worshiping the true God. And God says later: why must the slaughter take place at the entrance of the tabernacle? Because only the blood of a sacrifice slaughtered at that specific place—the entrance of the tabernacle—God promises will remove their sins.

So God is regulating them and further reminding Israel of what they must pay attention to when they offer sacrifices. In addition to all the earlier sacrificial regulations—what sin requires what sacrifice, what the priest must do, and the whole set of procedures that must be carried out correctly—there is one crucial element in this sacrificial system: the use of blood. This is a very important link in the system, because once you slaughter the animal, blood is shed.

Where must that blood be shed? It must be shed at the entrance of the tabernacle. It cannot be shed anywhere else. If it is shed elsewhere, it can easily give Israel the impression that it is permissible to bow down to idols and sacrifice to demons. This is why the slaughter must take place at the entrance of the tabernacle. And the punishment is very severe: if you do not do this, the result is that you will be “cut off from among the people.”

I have said that this may not necessarily mean execution. It means you are driven out—expelled from the community—you are no longer recognized as part of this people. For an Israelite, this is a very heavy punishment. It is extremely severe—like being removed from the registry, as we might joke. It is exile, something like that. So we see that after the Day of Atonement, God requires Israel to regulate their worship: they cannot sacrifice wherever they think is appropriate; they can only come to Yahweh’s altar to offer sacrifice.

So brothers and sisters, notice this: sacrifice is something that exists in pagan cultures as well, just like circumcision. In Abraham’s time, circumcision was not practiced only among Israelites; it existed elsewhere too. But God gave sacrifice its correct definition, just as God gave circumcision its correct definition.

Here God clearly tells Israel: why can you not offer sacrifice outside? Why must you offer it at the entrance of My tabernacle? Because I have re-defined what sacrifice means. Its meaning is atonement for your sins. Because life is in the blood. When you lay your hands on the head of the sacrificial animal, the animal carries away your sin, and you begin to become clean. God is re-defining the meaning of sacrifice.

Pagan sacrifice is not the same. In pagan sacrifice, the meaning is exchange. He kills a lamb as if to say to the demon, “Look, I have given you this lamb; now what reward will you give me?” That is the meaning. So both may kill a lamb, and some of the rituals may even look similar, but their meaning is completely different.

For example, in today’s culture, when a person goes to a temple to worship idols, it is also a transaction: “Idol, I have offered you something. I have burned the first incense. You must bless me.” It is transactional. But in Leviticus 17, God re-defines and regulates the correct meaning of sacrifice.

And if we go farther back, sacrifice originally had this meaning from the beginning. But as Noah’s descendants spread out and dispersed, they forgot the true meaning of sacrifice. They began to interpret sacrifice according to their own will, and it evolved into various strange forms of idolatry, including slaughtering animals for demons, and later even human sacrifice. But now, in Scripture, through Moses, God is regulating and defining again, returning sacrifice to its original meaning.

What is the original meaning of sacrifice? It is atonement. Therefore, when you sacrifice, why can you not do it outside? Why must you do it at the entrance of the tabernacle? Because God tells you: sacrifice at the entrance of the tabernacle can remove your sins. The main purpose of sacrifice is to remove your iniquity, not to please a deity. So this whole sacrificial language system is being restored through the use of blood—not merely that the same ritual is given a different meaning, but that the original meaning of sacrifice is being recovered. That is roughly the idea.

So I remind you: God places great weight on the second commandment, because the second commandment is connected to the first. If the way we worship is wrong, the God we worship will also be wrong. We must worship God according to the way He has appointed, because that is what pleases Him and that is His will. If we do not worship according to His appointed way, in reality it is very possible that we will worship wrongly—we will become idolaters. The “deity” outside the proper worship appointed by God may simply be the gods of paganism. This is a warning to us.

Next comes the issue of eating blood. Scripture is very clear here: God says you shall not eat blood; the sojourner also shall not eat blood. How should the blood be handled? If you hunt and take an animal or bird, you must pour out its blood and cover it with earth. So God forbids Israel to eat blood and explains the reason: as for the life of every creature, its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, “You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.”

Now, here there is something that is not entirely clear. The command “do not eat blood” is clear, and the statement “the blood is its life” is also clear. Eating blood is eating the life of the creature—this seems to be a reasonable inference. But why does eating the life of an animal necessarily require being cut off? Scripture does not explicitly explain that here. It leaves space for us to think and to reason according to Scripture. Why can we not eat the life of an animal? That is the question. This is why, although the passage looks clear, there are still ambiguities. So to address the issue of eating blood, we must look earlier.

First, let us look at Genesis chapter 9. There is a similar regulation. Genesis 9:4 says, “But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” The command in Genesis 9:4 is the same as the command in Leviticus 17:14: you shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the blood is its life; whoever eats it shall be cut off. So notice: here God again does not explain why we cannot eat the life of a creature. He simply gives the command. Blood is life; you cannot eat blood; if you eat blood, you eat its life.

But why can I not eat life? Scripture does not explain, so we need to make some inferences grounded in Scripture. I think one line of reasoning is an extension of what we see in Genesis from the beginning. I will mention the first level. In Genesis, when humans were created, we were not allowed to eat animal flesh. We did not eat meat. Our food was fruit from the trees. So at the beginning, in Eden, our diet was plant-based. We could eat fruit. Our digestive system, as it were, was probably not made to digest animal meat. But after the fall of man, in Noah’s time, God began to say that you may eat the flesh of animals.

Yet eating animal flesh and not eating its blood are still two different matters. I eat its flesh, but I do not eat its blood. That indicates that I do not eat its life. Now, I admit this can sound somewhat forced, because the animal is the one you killed. You eat its flesh—how can you say you are not eating its life? It does sound difficult to explain. But in terms of biblical reasoning, it seems relatively reasonable: God separates meat and blood. Meat satisfies bodily need, but blood cannot be eaten because blood contains a spiritual meaning—life is in it—therefore you cannot eat it. You cannot eat the blood of an animal; you cannot eat its life; its life does not belong to you. You can reason in such a way.

Then in Leviticus 17, although the command is clear, it still does not directly tell us why we cannot eat the life of an animal. But verse 16 seems to show us something. It seems that if we eat the life of an animal—if we eat blood—we become unclean. Where do we see that? Verse 15 says that whoever eats what dies of itself or what is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or a sojourner, shall be unclean until the evening.

Why is what dies of itself unclean? Why is what is torn by beasts unclean? Because when it dies of itself, its blood was not poured out. It did not have its blood drained. If the blood is not drained, the blood remains in it; then when you eat its flesh, you also eat blood. Therefore the person becomes unclean. So we can infer why we cannot eat the blood of an animal—why we cannot eat its life—because if you eat the life of an animal, you become ritually unclean. That seems to be a reasonable inference.

And in Genesis 9:4, where it says you cannot eat the life of an animal, that seems to be a protection for animals. Because Genesis 9:6 immediately says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” So there, “you cannot eat the life of an animal” and “you cannot shed man’s blood” seem to be protections—protection of animals and protection of human beings. Of course, this is still inference.

I have not seen any commentary explain this in a definitive way. This is my own reasoning: in Genesis, perhaps the reason you cannot eat animal blood is to protect the animal in this sense—you eat the meat but not the blood; you do not “take” its life. That is one reasoning. Then in Leviticus 17, it seems to tell us that you cannot eat the life of an animal because there is uncleanness in it. These are the two inferences I am drawing.

Now, what does this mean for our faith by way of application? I will continue discussing the issue of eating blood. Later, in Acts chapter 15, there is another command not to eat blood. But in Acts 15, the restriction for the Gentile churches not to eat blood has a historical background. What is that background? Jews and Gentiles were in one church together. For Jews, not eating blood had become a national habit and cultural practice. If you eat blood in front of them, it would easily offend them. Therefore Acts 15 gives the instruction. The passage is Acts 15:29.

Verse 20 says they should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. Then it adds the reason: “For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” So here, “do not eat what has been strangled and blood” is given to prevent offending Jews.

So when we synthesize these three passages—Genesis, Leviticus, and Acts—if you ask for my opinion, I personally do not support eating blood. But my reason is not Leviticus 17, nor Acts 15. It should be Genesis chapter 9. Genesis 9 teaches us not to be stained by animal blood. Many people object, because in the New Testament there are many passages—especially Paul—that say our cleanness is not about food regulations; the food laws are gone; therefore you can eat blood and eat it boldly. This is the view of many people, and many Reformed people also hold this view, because the New Testament does indeed say many things about not imposing food restrictions.

But if we look at the revelation of the whole Bible, especially Genesis 9:4, rather than Leviticus—because we can affirm that Leviticus has been fulfilled and cleansed in Christ, and there are no longer food regulations in that sense, which is also Paul’s point—nevertheless, because Genesis 9:4 contains this regulation, I think, out of prudence, Christians should still not eat blood. That is roughly my view on this question.

Also, in the whole Bible, there is only one place where we “eat blood,” and that is when we receive the Lord’s Supper: we drink Christ’s blood. So I think we can also do some reverse reasoning from this. What kind of reasoning? God does not want us to be stained by uncleanness; God wants us to live a holy life, wholly living in the blood of Jesus Christ.

On the one hand, Christ’s blood covers and atones for our sins and transgressions; it becomes the covering of our iniquity—this is the atoning sacrifice. At the same time, because life is in the blood, as Scripture says, in the blood there is the life of Jesus Christ. Therefore this also implies that we must have a spiritual, living union with Jesus Christ, rather than a connection with livestock, rather than with wild beasts, but with Jesus.

I have not seen any commentator explain it in this way. I also have not seen a specialized treatment on blood in that sense. But I think this line of reasoning has some basis, so I share it with you: in fact, there is only one blood with which we are to be concerned—the blood of Jesus Christ. We are to have fellowship with the life of Jesus Christ. We are to possess His life, not the life of animals.

So here, I think we can see that the command not to eat blood aims at our cleansing, so that we may receive the one true blood—meaning the blood of Jesus Christ—and when we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we more deeply commune with the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, because that is the only life that comes from heaven.

Therefore, we should not become overly entangled in disputes about whether we should eat blood. At the same time, we also completely oppose the idea that, in this age, a person uses “I do not eat certain foods” as a way to display his holiness. I think that is not reasonable.

Because in Paul’s letters there is much teaching on this. I will cite one example: Colossians 2:16–17 says, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” And then it says, “Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind.”

So now we should not quarrel with people over the issue of eating blood or not eating blood, as if we were more holy than they are. No. We are simply holding to the teaching of Scripture and holding to our understanding of Scripture. In this way we can better obey God’s law.

Because the “cleanness” in food that Paul speaks about, and Peter’s vision in Acts about clean and unclean animals—God removed that distinction. Those food regulations were removed. But there is not an explicit clause that directly removes the regulation about blood itself. Therefore we should not speculate too much, and we should not over-explain. Some Reformed beginners even deliberately eat blood. I think that is not a very good testimony.

In China, traditional house churches do not eat blood. But what their scriptural basis is, I am not entirely sure. From which passages they reason, and whether they consider it from the whole Bible, I do not know. So sometimes it is not merely an action. Sometimes it is the theology behind the action—how a person understands the whole Bible—that needs to be considered. May God help us. That is all for today. Thank you, everyone.