Changes

The related controversial aspect of this law is whether it falls into the class of ceremonial laws, and thus is no longer binding for Christians, or whether it belongs to the same class of transcendent moral laws which precede it. In favor of it belonging to the class of ceremonial laws is the nature of the proscribed acts, as unlike other sexual laws in this chapter laws, v. 19 does not deal with forbidden sexual partners, but the condition of the wife. Besides protecting the wife, the key aspect seems to that of touching blood, and in this regard v. 19 would be akin to other ceremonial laws regarding touching something.  

The related controversial aspect of this law is whether it falls into the class of ceremonial laws, and thus is no longer binding for Christians, or whether it belongs to the same class of transcendent moral laws which precede it. In favor of it belonging to the class of ceremonial laws is the nature of the proscribed acts, as unlike other sexual laws in this chapter laws, v. 19 does not deal with forbidden sexual partners, but the condition of the wife. Besides protecting the wife, the key aspect seems to that of touching blood, and in this regard v. 19 would be akin to other ceremonial laws regarding touching something.  

Leaning towards moral law is the fact that the sanctity of blood precedes the Mosaic ceremonial dietary laws, as immediately after the flood, while God sanctioned the eating of all meat  (Gen 9:3; cf. 1:29), eating it with the blood not drained was strictly forbidden. This was later abundantly confirmed in Leviticus. (Lv. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-14; 19:26) As the purpose of the law is to save life and not destroy them (cf. Mk. 3:4), such a restriction would not forbid the ingestion of pure blood in such dire circumstances. However, it is a matter of controversy whether blood (as in mainly blood or blood products) is considered a food that would place it in the area of liberty for Christians, (1Tim. 4:3-5) or whether it is forbidden due to its inherent sanctity, perhaps with Acts 15:20 being upheld as part of the Jewish Halakha,<ref>http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/cjt/files/electures/gloss.htm#Halakhah</ref> in addition to causing a possible offense to others.(1Cor. 8,10)<ref>The Chemistry Of The Blood, M.R. DeHaan, M.D. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/05.htm</ref>  

Leaning towards moral law is the fact that the [[Holy|sanctity]] of blood precedes the Mosaic ceremonial dietary laws, as immediately after the flood, while God sanctioned the eating of all meat  (Gen 9:3; cf. 1:29), eating it with the blood not drained was strictly forbidden. This was later abundantly confirmed in Leviticus. (Lv. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-14; 19:26) As the purpose of the law is to save life and not destroy them (cf. Mk. 3:4), such a restriction would not forbid the ingestion of pure blood in such dire circumstances. However, it is a matter of controversy whether blood (as in mainly blood or blood products) is considered a food that would place it in the area of liberty for Christians, (1Tim. 4:3-5) or whether it is forbidden due to its inherent sanctity, perhaps with Acts 15:20 being upheld as part of the Jewish Halakha,<ref>http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/cjt/files/electures/gloss.htm#Halakhah</ref> in addition to causing a possible offense to others.(1Cor. 8,10)<ref>The Chemistry Of The Blood, M.R. DeHaan, M.D. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/05.htm</ref>  

Applying this sanctity of blood as relates to Lv. 18:19, many Christians hold that Heb. 13:4 sanctifies all benevolent sexual intercourse between man and wife (male and female), or as affirming their sexual relations in contrast to those which forbid sex in marriage (1Tim. 3:5)<ref>Wesley</ref> Others disagree, perhaps seeing Lev. 18:19 as still applicable out of regard for the sanctity of blood and or the procreative process.<ref>John Gill, Ezek. 22:10; Acts 15:20</ref>

Applying this sanctity of blood as relates to Lv. 18:19, many Christians hold that Heb. 13:4 sanctifies all benevolent sexual intercourse between man and wife (male and female), or as affirming their sexual relations in contrast to those which forbid sex in marriage (1Tim. 3:5)<ref>Wesley</ref> Others disagree, perhaps seeing Lev. 18:19 as still applicable out of regard for the sanctity of blood and or the procreative process.<ref>John Gill, Ezek. 22:10; Acts 15:20</ref>