(26) Moreover ye shall eat. . . . --Better, and ye shall eat no blood in all your dwellings. That is, this law is binding upon the Israelites wherever they may dwell. (See Leviticus 3:17.)

Whether it be of fowl or of beast.--It extends to all fowls and quadrupeds, whether they are legally prescribed as sacrifices or not; but not to fishes, locusts, creeping things, &c., which are not prescribed in the dietary laws as unclean.

7:11-27 As to the peace-offerings, in the expression of their sense of mercy, God left them more at liberty, than in the expression of their sense of sin; that their sacrifices, being free-will offerings, might be the more acceptable, while, by obliging them to bring the sacrifices of atonement, God shows the necessity of the great Propitiation. The main reason why blood was forbidden of old, was because the Lord had appointed blood for an atonement. This use, being figurative, had its end in Christ, who by his death and blood-shedding caused the sacrifices to cease. Therefore this law is not now in force on believers.Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood,.... Of any of the above creatures, or any other, even of any clean creature, and much less of an unclean one:

whether it be of fowl or of beast; of all sorts and kinds. Jarchi thinks, the words being thus expressed, the blood of fishes and locusts is excepted, and so lawful to eat:

in any of your dwellings; this shows that this law is not to be restrained to creatures slain in sacrifice in the tabernacle, and to the blood of them, but to be understood of all such as were slain in their own houses for food, and the blood of them.