(14) For it is the life of all flesh . . . --Better, for the soul of all flesh is its blood, in, or through, its soul, that is, the sacredness of the blood arises from the fact that it contains the vital principle of all animal life. Or this clause may be rendered, for the life of all flesh is its blood in, or during, its life, that is, the life of all creatures consists in its blood; but only as long as the blood contains this life, for when it is dried up, or coagulated, the life has passed away from it.

For the life of all flesh.--Better, for the soul of all flesh (see Leviticus 17:11), that is, even of those wild animals which, in contradistinction to the sacrificial quadrupeds, must not be offered upon the altar, the blood constitutes the vital principle.

17:10-16 Here is a confirmation of the law against eating blood. They must eat no blood. But this law was ceremonial, and is now no longer in force; the coming of the substance does away the shadow. The blood of beasts is no longer the ransom, but Christ's blood only; therefore there is not now the reason for abstaining there then was. The blood is now allowed for the nourishment of our bodies; it is no longer appointed to make an atonement for the soul. Now the blood of Christ makes atonement really and effectually; to that, therefore, we must have regard, and not consider it as a common thing, or treat it with indifference.For it is the life of all flesh,.... Of every animal:

the blood of it is for the life thereof; for the production, preservation, and continuance of life; that on which life depends, as Jarchi observes:

therefore I said unto the children of Israel, ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; of beasts or birds, whose flesh was fit for food; but their blood was not to be eaten, for the reasons before given:

for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; which is repeated, that it might be observed and taken notice of, as that in which the force of the reason lay for giving this law:

whosoever eateth it shall be cut off; by death, whether he be an Israelite or a proselyte of righteousness; wherefore if this law was now in force, its penalty also would be continued, whereas it is not, and which shows the abrogation of it. Also See Gill on Leviticus 17:4.